Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

A novel approach for the prediction of the incipient motion of sediments T

under smooth, transitional and rough flow conditions using Geno-Fuzzy
Inference System model
⁎
Hussein Bizimana , Abdüsselam Altunkaynak
Hydraulics Division, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak 34469, Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by A. Bardossy, In this present study, a novel approach is introduced for accurate prediction of the incipient motion of uniform
Editor-in-Chief. grain particles in sand and gravel-bedded open channels under unidirectional flow by improving Sugeno Fuzzy
Keywords: Inference System (Sugeno FIS). The Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) tool is based on Sugeno
Fuzzy logic FIS. Consequent part of the ANFIS tool is limited to either as a constant or a linear function. This means that not
Shields entrainment function only a non-linear function is available for the consequent part of the model but also it cannot be represented by
Shear Reynolds number the constant and linear functions, at the same time. ANFIS tool optimizes antecedent parameters (fuzzy sets) and
Genetic algorithm consequent parameters (constant or linear functions) by utilizing neural and least square methods, respectively.
Sediments
In this study, a novel hybrid model named as Geno-Fuzzy Inference System (GENOFIS) is introduced by in-
Artificial neural network
tegrating improved Sugeno FIS and Genetic Algorithms (GAs) that refer to where, the antecedent (fuzzy sets) and
consequent (constant, linear and non-linear functions) parameters are optimized using Genetic Algorithms (GAs)
tool. A quantitative comparison is implemented between the ANFIS and GENOFIS models using root mean
square error (RMSE) and the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency (CE) as evaluation criteria by using three
different types of incipient motion of sediment measurements that exist in the literature as reference, visual and
development of competence functions. The results of this present study demonstrated that the novel GENOFIS
model provided more accurate prediction results in comparisons with the ANFIS model results for three different
types of incipient motion of sediment.

1. Introduction
1.1. Incipient motion and sediment transport overview
Following an important increase in the volume of flow pressing
against stationary sediment particles, at a given level which particles
cannot possibly sustain undergoing pressure acting upon them caused
by the hydrodynamic forces (drag force and lift force), suddenly dis-
location will happen and movement will initiate (Buffington and
Montgomery, 1997; Andrews, 1994). The instantaneous changes from a
no motion state to initiation of sediment motion is defined as the
threshold of initial motion or threshold of incipient motion which refers
to the earliest stage of sediment transport. The study of the incipient
motion of sediment transport is very crucial in various areas such as
channel design, river morphology and restoration, pollutant transport,
sediment mobility, and their transport, etc. (Paphitis, 2001; Ali and
Dey, 2016; Dey and Ali, 2018). The sediment transport is extremely
related to the bed surface morphology, grain particle size, protrusion to
the flow and packing orders (Fenton and Abbott, 1977; Giménez-curto
and Corniero, 2009), most notably the recurring behavioural aspect of
turbulence in near-bed flow (Sutherland, 1967; Dey et al., 2012).
Fig. 1a illustrates a description of a bed grain particle that is targeted at
the incipience of sediment entrainment by hydraulically rough wall-
shear flow conditions. The catalyst forces for the grain particle trans-
port are the lift force FL and drag force FD. Elseways, the force brings the
stabilizing condition to the particle is the submerged weight FG of the
actual particle. The targeted bed particle can be possibly under these
following entrainment modes, rolling, sliding, and lifting. Fig. 1b,
Fig. 1c, and Fig. 1d illustrate all those transport modes. The first mode
of entrainment is rolling and is depicted in Fig. 1b, it happens when the
destabilizing moment MD around the pivoting point exceeds the stabi-
lizing moment MS around the same point (Ali and Dey, 2016; Dey and
Ali, 2018). Elseways, Fig. 1c illustrates the sliding mode where the drag
force FD surpasses the frictional resistance FR at the contact points;

⁎
Corresponding author at: Istanbul Technical University, Maslak 34469, Istanbul, Turkey.
E-mail address: mutembealhussein@gmail.com (H. Bizimana).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.123952
Received 27 February 2019; Received in revised form 10 July 2019; Accepted 12 July 2019
Available online 15 July 2019
0022-1694/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
Fig. 1. Targeted bed grain particle at the incipience of entrainment by a rough wall-shear flow condition.
moreover, in lifting mode Fig. 1d, the lift force FL surpasses the sub-
merged weight FG of the grain particle. Hence, all entrainment modes of
a grain particle entrainment are as follows (Dey and Ali, 2018):
Rolling mode: MD ≥ MS → FDlv + FLlh ≥ FGlh ,
Sliding mode: FD ≥ FR → FD ≥ kfr (FD − FR)
Lifting mode: FL ≥ FG
where lv and lh define the vertical and the horizontal lever arms, re-
spectively, and kfr defines the coefficient of friction. kfr = tanØ, if Ø is
the internal friction angle. The equal sign presented in Eq. (1) for a
specific grain particle entrainment mode represents the incipience of
entrainment mode conditions, whilst the greater than sign means a
transport or entrainment mode (Elhakeem et al., 2017). In order to
measure the incipient motion of sediment transport accurately; some
dimensionless variables and functions of the two-phase phenomenon
are used. The two-phase phenomenon is herein defined by the fluid,
cohesionless granular medium and flow characteristics such as density
(ρ), viscosity (µ), density of the granular material (ρs), diameter of the
granular material (D), average depth of flow (h), slope (J) and force of
gravity (g) (Yalin 1977). According to Yalin (1977), when defining the
two-phase motion, it should always be preferred to use the shear ve-
locity (u*) and specific density (ρs) rather than using the slope (J) and
force of gravity (g). In addition, basic quantities can be defined as
characteristic parameters that have independent dimensions. The pro-
cedure to transform the characteristic parameters into dimensionless
variables was defined by Yalin (1977) as follows:
X1 = a1α1 a2β1 a3γ1 a4m1 ⎫ should be used.
⎪
X2 = a1α 2 a2β2 a3γ 2 a5m2 (with N= n− 3)
-------------------- ⎬
XN=a1αN a2βN a3γN anmN ⎪
⎭ (2)
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
where a1, a2, a3 and an are N basic quantities of the set ai (i = 1,2,…,n).
These N basic quantities are combined with each one of the remaining
n-3 power products X1, X2,…,XN formed by n characteristic parameters
ai as shown by eq.1, as the dimensionless variables of the two-phase
(1a)
phenomenon. mj,αj,βj and γj must be selected so that each of the power
products above (Eq. (2)) becomes dimensionless (Yalin, 1977). In this
(1b)
present study the set ρ, µ, ρs, υ, D, h, u*, γs is considered for the two-
phase phenomenon in sediment transport. Furthermore, selection of the
(1c)
parameters D,ρ,u*, which have independent dimensions as basic quan-
tities is performed. Moreover, the application of the procedure implied
by Eq.2 permits to determine the following 8–3 = 5 power products as
the dimensionless variables of the two-phase phenomenon. In this study
the incipient motion of sediment transport or Shields entrainment
function is defined by two dimensionless characteristic parameters, this
is because of data used in this study from previous researches that were
defined by only two dimensionless characteristic parameters as follows:
u*cr D
X1 = X cr = D1ρ1u 1cr μ−1 =
* υ (3)
ρu 2cr
X2 = Ycr = D−1 ρ1 u 2cr γs−1 = *
* γs D (4)
where X1 and X2 in Eqs. (3) and (4) stand for shear Reynolds number
(Re*) and Shield entrainment function (Ycr), respectively, D defines
particle diameter, ρ defines the fluid density, u* defines the bed shear
velocity,µ defines the fluid dynamic viscosity, υ defines the fluid kine-
matic viscosity and γs defines particle specific weight. For the calcula-
tion of Re*, the roughness length is taken as D by considering uniform
granular material, otherwise, Nikuradse’s equivalent sand roughness
2
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
1.2. Incipient motion modeling overview
Using purely theoretical reasoning, it has been established that the
initiation of sediment transport on a plane mobile bed is given by a
certain condition that must be fulfilled by the dimensionless variables
shear Reynolds number (Xcr) and Shields entrainment function (Ycr)
(Yalin, 1977). Shields introduced to plot the experimental values Ycr
versus Xcr with the intention of producing a curve determining the in-
itiation of sediment transport for the first time (Shields, 1936). There-
after, in recent years some implicit and explicit mathematical ap-
proaches have been used to study the threshold of incipient motion of
sediments (Shields, 1936; Yalin and Karahan, 1979; Paphitis, 2001;,
Yalin and da Silva, 2001, Cao et al., 2006, Kitsikoudis et al., 2016;
Sipiliotis et al., 2018; Dey and Ali, 2018;). Due to the complexity and
high variability in defining hydrodynamics of sediments; defining the
threshold of incipient motion of sediments under a natural environment
also becomes very challenging (Shields, 1936; Komar and Clemens,
1986; Paphitis, 2001; Vollmer and Kleinhans, 2007; Elhakeem et al.,
2017). In order to overcome this challenge, numerous empirical
threshold curves representing the threshold (critical) condition for the
incipient (initial) motion of sediments or Shields entrainment function
as discussed herein, have been represented (Hjulstrom, 1935; Shields,
1936; Inman, 1949; Sundborg, 1956; Komar and Clemens, 1986;
Paphitis, 2001). The most commonly used approach to defining the
threshold of initiation of sediment transport up today is still regarded as
the Shields approach (Shields 1936) even though; details from Shields
results remain extremely vague (Kennedy, 1995; Buffington, 1999).
This same fact was supported by Shvidchenko and Pender (2000) by
showing how the vagueness persists in defining what actually con-
stitutes the incipient of motion. Furthermore, Vanoni (2006) concluded
that the different definitions given to the initiation of motion by dif-
ferent researchers highly generate a bias to the published data. As it can
be noted in previously several approaches to defining the initiation of
motion for sediment transport have been undertaken (Shields, 1936;
Yalin and Karahan, 1979; Yalin and da Silva, 2001). In the actual lit-
erature, the incipience of sediment transport is commonly defined using
three different approaches, namely reference, visual and competence-
based approaches (Buffington and Montgomery, 1997; Buffington and
Montgomery, 1998; Buffington, 1999, Cao et al., 2006). The critical
shear stress defined using reference-based approach is determined with
either a zero or low reference entrainment rate extrapolated to from
joined shear stress and bed sediment entrainment analysis (Ashworth
and Ferguson, 1989; Ashworth et al., 1992). Visual observation ap-
proach is direct but can carry high subjectivity depending on re-
searcher’s definition of how much sediment entrainment defines the
incipience of sediment motion (Kramer, 1935; Neill and Yalin, 1969;
Yalin and Karahan, 1979; Wilcock, 1988; Turowski et al. (2011);
Schiereck, 2017). The competence functions are highly linked to the
size and efficiency of the sediment catch, sample size, presence of
coarse sediment sizes and definitely fitting approach (Wilcock, 1988,
Wathen et al., 1995). Even though all methods used to define the in-
cipience of sediment transport carry methodological bias that can be
the cause of subjectivities and inappropriateness while deciding which
research method is the best while defining the Shields entrainment
function value (Ycr). None of these research methods used to define the
incipience of sediment motion is considered superior (Buffington and
Montgomery, 1997, Dey and Ali, 2018). Each and every research
method has relatively its weakness and strength. Yet, every method is
more competitive in a particular case than others (Carson and Griffiths,
1985). For instance, since competence and reference-based values of Ycr
are computed from bedload entrainment estimations, they can be ac-
cepted as the best research approaches that can be used to compute
bedload transport. Following the bed load and the investigative tech-
nique applied, competence and reference-based approaches can in-
tegrate differential bed mobility that comes from bed surface textural
blotches and reach-scale separation of shear stress and sediment
3
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
entrainment. Therefore, Competence and reference-based approaches
can be considered the best alternatives while representing reach-
average bed sediment motion. Unlikeness, visual based approaches
specifically focus on to record local incipience of sediment entrainment
and are the best fit for application to entrainment studies of distinct bed
surface textural blotches (Carson and Griffiths, 1985; Wilcock, 1988;
Buffington and Montgomery, 1997; Dey and Ali, 2018). Moreover, the
approaches used to analyze the incipience of sediment entrainment,
carry additionally considerable drawbacks such as many iterations,
time-consuming nature and requiring expensive experiments and un-
fortunately the results found still carry considerable errors. Un-
doubtedly, the accurate measurement of the incipient (initiation) of
motion could contribute great valuable information to water resources
engineering planners and designers. Recently, in order to bring a new
approach to the accurate measurement of the initiation of sediment
transport; fuzzy approach has been used in rough flow conditions
(Spiliotis et al., 2018; Kitsikoudis et al., 2016). Spiliotis et al. (2018)
applied the fuzzy set knowledge to the Zanke’s equation (Dey and Ali,
2018) in rough flow conditions. Spiliotis et al. (2018) opted not to
consider the application in smooth and transitional flow conditions
because of higher influence of viscous forces present. Previously, the
same group of researchers (Kitsikoudis et al., 2016) has applied the
fuzzy regression analysis combined with goal programming to model
the incipient motion under rough flow conditions. Obviously, a need to
extend this approach for all hydrodynamic flow conditions to con-
tribute to the current knowledge is present. Knowing that Neuro-Fuzzy
approach which is a powerful combination of Artificial Neural Net-
works (ANN) and Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) has
been successfully used in hydrology, hydraulics and other water re-
sources fields such as rainfall-runoff modeling (Şen and Altunkaynak,
2006; Nasr and Bruen, 2008; Remesan et al., 2009), flood hazard risk
mapping ( Sonmez and Bizimana, 2018), modeling of lake water level
fluctuations (Altunkaynak and Şen, 2007; Bizimana et al., 2016),
stream flow prediction (Özger, 2009), model for equilibrium scour in
sediment transport (Uyumaz et al., 2006). Moreover, Tütmez et al.
(2007) who compared the spatial interpolation of mechanical proper-
ties of rocks by using Mamdani and Sugeno fuzzy models, concluded
that Sugeno fuzzy model was better than Mamdani fuzzy model in in-
vestigating the randomness presented in mechanical properties of rocks
under nonlinear distribution. Furthermore, Ying (1999), in their re-
search concluded that Sugeno fuzzy approach is very economical while
defining the number of inputs fuzzy sets compared to Mamdani fuzzy
approach when nontrapezoidal/nontriangular inputs fuzzy sets are
applied. Consequently, the advantages found in literature of Sugeno
fuzzy approach over Mamdani fuzzy approach and successful applica-
tion of Sugeno ANFIS approach in previous sediment transport based
studies such as in evaluation of sediment entrainment in sand-bed rivers
(Azamathulla et al., 2009; Kitsikoudis et al., 2015), computation of bed
load in gravel-bedded river channels (Kitsikoudis et al.,2014;Zounemat-
Kermani et al., 2018) andcomputation of sediment entrainment in
sewer pipe systems (Azamathulla et al., 2012), increased the motivation
to apply machine learning or soft computation techniques, specifically
Sugeno ANFIS to determine the incipient motion of sediment in all
hydrodynamic flow conditions namely hydrodynamically smooth,
transitional and hydrodynamically rough. The neuro-fuzzy method
clearly makes use of a combination of Artificial Neural Network (ANN)
architecture and Fuzzy Logic (FL) reasoning ability. These two ap-
proaches fall into soft computation techniques which are very im-
portant when encountered with systems that are hard to be described
analytically by conventional physical and mathematical approaches.
ANN can be described as a black box modeling tool which is able to
obtain accurate results matching with observed data. According to
Jovanovic et al. (2004), the mechanism of ANN learning is free of
human expertise. Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) has recently become a
popular computing approach with its concept of fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy
sets, fuzzy operators and expert base are building components of FIS.
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
The expert base of a FIS together with its rule base made of a number of
fuzzy IF-THEN rules and corresponding membership functions of the
fuzzy sets considered in the fuzzy rules; can utilize expert knowledge.
Although FIS is very easy to use when expressing the knowledge with a
set of if-then rules, still there is no methodical approach to make this
transformation (Jang, 1992).
Consequently, the combination of ANN and FIS generates a mu-
tually beneficial relationship that tackles previously mentioned draw-
backs of each individual method. This has meshed through integrated
Neuro-Fuzzy (NF) building blocks that share data structures and
knowledge representation (Jang, 1992; Jang, 1993). ANFIS is a dif-
ferent type of NF building architectures which belongs to the category
of full fused NF systems (Jovanovic et al., 2004). Compared to other
most used NF architectures such as Evolving Fuzzy Neural Network
(Kasabov, 1999), Fuzzy Inference Software (Tano et Al., 1996) and
many more, ANFIS architecture provides the lowest root mean square
error (RMSE) when used for prediction of any chaotic data set
(Abraham and Nath, 2000; Abraham, 2001).
1.3. Research objectives
The objectives of this present study are i) improve the widely used
Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) tool, which is based
on the Sugeno Fuzzy Inference System (Sugeno FIS) approach. The
consequent part of ANFIS is allowed to be represented either as a
constant or a linear function. This means that not only a non-linear
function is available for the consequent part of the model but also it
cannot be represented by the constant and linear functions, at the same
time. ii) develop a novel method to overcome the shortcomings of
ANFIS model with the combination of improved Sugeno FIS and
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) that has skills to represent the consequent
part of the model simultaneously by a constant, linear and non-linear
function or a combination of them. In addition, the newly developed
model optimizes the antecedent parameters (fuzzy sets) and consequent
parameters (constant, linear and non-linear functions) via utilizing the
GAs tool. iii) develop a model for sediment entrainment for smooth,
transitional and rough flow conditions. iv) investigate and compare the
performances of ANFIS and newly developed model which is named as
Geno-Fuzzy Inference System (GENOFIS) in predicting the inci-
pient motion of sediments under smooth, transitional and rough flow
conditions. In the following, Section 2 represents the theory establish-
ment in this study, section 3 represents the materials and methods
applied in this study and section 4 represents the results and discussion
of this study whilst section 5 qualitatively summarizes the main con-
clusions of this study.
2. Theory establishment
2.1. Adaptive Neural fuzzy Inference System
Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) is based on
Takagi-Sugeno FIS (Sugeno and Kang, 1988). The Neuro-fuzzy model is
introduced by R.Jang, (1992) and with the name of ANFIS by Jang
(1992), Jang (1993) that used two inputs and generated one output by
using two fuzzy if-then rules.
Rule 1: If × is A1 and y is B1 then fi = p1x + q1y + r1
Rule 2: If × is A2 and y is B2 then f2 = p2x + q2y + r2
As depicted in Fig. 2, five structure layers of the ANFIS tool are
defined as follows:
Layer 1: Every node available in this layer has a node function
OÄ1° = μ Ai (X ) for i = 1, 2 or;
Oi1 = μ Bi − 2 (Y ) for i = 3, 4
(5)
where X or Y is the input to node i, and Ai or (Bi-2) represents the
linguistic label (big, small, high, close, etc.) in association with the node
4
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
function. The function defines the level to which X (or Y ) meets the
quantifier A, (or Bi-2) and also called as the membership function of Ai or
(Bi-2). The FIS provides tremendous freedom in defining the type of
membership functions in relation to our needs in terms of speed, sim-
plicity, convenience, and efficiency. The only condition that should be
satisfied is that a membership function must definitely vary between 0
and 1 (Tagaki and Sugeno, 1985). Fig. 2 depicts the ANFIS architecture
suggested by Jang (1992).
However, the membership function is a function of its parameters,
therefore changing its parameters alters the membership function
shape. Parameters found in the first layer refer to antecedent (premise)
parameters.
Layer 2: Every node in this layer multiplies the incoming signals
and also sends the product which is defined as the firing strength of a
rule.
Oi2 = Wi = μAi (X )xμBi (Y ), i = 1, 2 (6)
Layer 3: The name given to the outputs in this layer are called
normalized firings strengths because each i-th node in this particular
layer calculates the ratio of the i-th strength to the total summation of
all rules of the firing strengths.
− Wi
Oi3 = Wi = , i = 1, 2
∑i Wi (7)
Layer 4: Every node i in this particular layer is represented by a
square node with a node function.
− −
Oi4 = Wi = Wi (pi x + qi y + ri ), i = 1, 2 (8)
−
where Wi is the output characteristic of layer 3, and (p1, q1, r1) is a set of
parameters referred to consequent parameters. It should be noticed that
in case of pi = 0 and qi = 0 (i = 1,2) a Sugeno FIS which is named as
zero-order is implemented, otherwise it is the first order Sugeno FIS
that is incorporated (Sugeno, 1985; Tagaki and Sugeno, 1985).
Layer 5: The computation of the overall output as the summation of
all signals received is made available by the single node in this layer.
− ∑i wi fi
Oi5 = ∑ wifi =
i
∑i wi (9)
In order to reach its best performance, ANFIS makes use of the least
mean square optimization method in order to determine the consequent
parameters and backpropagation to obtain the antecedent (premise)
parameters. Every step in the learning process is composed of two steps:
In the first step training data set is used as the input, the antecedent or
boundary parameters are considered as fixed values and the optimal
consequent parameters are obtained by an iterative (epoch) least mean
square method. In the second step, patterns are once again propagated,
but herein this step the consequent parameters are supposed to be
fastened and backpropagation is utilized to alter the antecedent para-
meters. But unfortunately, ANFIS does represent the optimal con-
sequent output as a constant or linear function whereas many problems
behave strongly non-linear. Therefore, this present study introduces a
novel approach named as GENOFIS model which is an integration of the
improved SUGENO FIS and Genetic Algorithms (GAs). Moreover,
GENOFIS allows the representation of the consequent part as constant,
linear and non-linear functions, at the same time as well as optimize
antecedent and consequent parameters utilizing GAs.
2.2. Geno fuzzy Inference System
Practical assumptions in determination of the suitable Sugeno FIS
architecture for any practical social or engineering problem are a
compromise between the accuracy and the computational entangle-
ment. For the conventional ANFIS architecture, for n inputs, f mem-
bership functions and k parameters that are given to each input and
membership function, respectively need the total number of fitting
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
Fig. 2. ANFIS with the rule base containing two IF-THEN rules.
parameters equal to F(n,f,k) = nf.k + fn. (n + 1). It should be noticed
that the time needed for computation during the training process in an
ANFIS, directly rely on this number; therefore, caution needs to be
taken when increasing it. It should also be kept in mind that the re-
lationship between computational entanglement and ANFIS di-
mensionality is one of the drawbacks of the ordinary fuzzy approach.
This is frequently referred to as the ‘curse of dimensionality' (Maguire
et al., 1998). Furthermore, as mentioned before, ANFIS generally can
only define the consequent part either as a constant or linear function,
at the same time. Consequently, the present study combines the ap-
proach defined by Jovanovic et al. (2004) proposed that in order to
enhance the accuracy of ANFIS and at the same time reduce the com-
putational entanglement, the number of if-then rules in FIS should be
represented by the number of input fuzzy sets. Under this presumption
the total number of fitting parameters is given by G (n, f,
k) = n × f × k + n × f (n + 1) = n × f × (n + k + 1). This approach
considerably increases the accuracy as well as reduces the computation
entanglement in linear problems. Unfortunately, it cannot solve non-
linear problems. Consequently, as mentioned before in section 2; this
present study introduces the GENOFIS, a novel approach that permits
the representation of the consequent part with a non-linear function
where antecedent and consequent parameters are optimized by the GAs
tool. Hence, the present novel method allows presenting the consequent
part of the introduced novel method as non-linear functions for the
particular Shields entrainment function (Ycr) prediction of uniform se-
diment grain materials, which highly behaves in a non-linear manner
(Shields, 1936; Yalin and Karahan, 1979; Yalin and da Silva, 2001;
Paphitis, 2001; Kitsikoudis et al., 2016). The general rule bases for the
novel GENOFIS model used three approaches (reference, visual and
competence) used in the literature to define the incipient motion of
sediments under smooth, transitional and rough flow conditions as
follows:
Rule 1: If Xcr is Laminar
Ycr = a1 (Re *)n + b1 (Re *)n − 1 + c1 (Re *)n − 2 + d1 (Re *)n − n + e1
Rule 2: If Xcr is Transitional
Ycr = a2 (Re *)n + b2 (Re *)n − 1 + c2 (Re *)n − 2 + d2 (Re *)n − n + e2
Rule 3: If Xcr is Turbulent
Ycr = a3 (Re *)n + b3 (Re *)n − 1 + c3 (Re *)n − 2 + d3 (Re *)n − n + e3 where Ycr
defines the Shields entrainment function and Re* is the shear Reynolds
Number.
a1,b1,c1,d1,e1,a2,b2,c2,d3,e3,a3,b3,c3,d3, and e3 are consequent
parameters which are optimized using Genetic Algorithms (GAs) tool
which is a method that searches the optimum solution by generating
random number in a defined interval. The GAs goal is to determine a1
which combines parameters b1, c1, d1, and e1 in Rule 1, a2 which
combines parameters b2, c2, d2 and e2, and a3 which combines
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
parameters b3, c3, d3, and e3 by using its inherent properties. In order to
successfully achieve this objective, in the beginning, chromosome po-
pulation belonging to firmness variables is picked out randomly. In
most cases, GAs is coded in binary (0, 1) basis in order to simplify the
calculation. These digital series are called chromosomes. Foregoing and
present state variables connecting the weights Rules’ of chromosomes
formation which is in binary basis digital system is depicted in Fig. 3.
In the chromosome structure depicted in Fig. 3, a member of state
transition rules for Rule 1 (a1,b1,c1,d1,e1), Rule 2 (a2,b2,c2,d2,e2) and
Rule 3 (a3,b3,c3,d3,e3) were presented by 10 bits (for each member)
respectively. After being coded in this way, the activeness of each
chromosome in the community was calculated separately. The roulette
wheel approach was used to determine the activeness of each chro-
mosome. The activeness criterion of the chromosomes was determined
according to the difference between the observed data and predicted
values.
The global optimum solution point was reached at the point for
which the root-mean-square error (RMSE) value becomes the smallest.
The activeness of each chromosome defines whether a chromosome has
to stay in or leave the population. Cross-over transaction at GAs pos-
sesses an important function in shaping the members with more ac-
tiveness at the community. The high activeness of any member defines
its survival or otherwise its dismissal. The existing generation is varied
by using the operators of GAs; cross-over and mutation. According to
the literature it is likely regarded that after the new member joins the
population, it becomes closer to the solution in order to attain the ob-
jective (Altunkaynak, 2008). In this present study, each chromosome in
the population was coded with a randomly performed genetic digital
series and a cross-over between the genes. It is called random cross-
over. The randomness was also used to define the cross-over’s length.
Unlike many other approaches such as the least square method (LSM),
GA generates a vast number of solution points rather than only one
then solution point. Therefore, GAs can reach the global optimum solution
among all solution points (Altunkaynak, 2009; Altunkaynak, 2013,
then Hadi and Tombul 2018). In table 1 a comparison between Fuzzy Logic
(FL) and Genetic Algorithms (GAs) for their differences is exhibited.
then
2.3. Geno-Fuzzy Inference System versus Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference
System
Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) is a technique that
holds the capacity to self-organize its network system and to train the
parameters of the system. The ANFIS tool uses the advantage of
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) learning algorithms and Fuzzy
Inference Systems (FIS). In other words, ANFIS merges the verbal ca-
pacity of FIS and the numerical capacity of the ANN. An ANFIS is
5
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Fig. 3. Chromosomes structure.

Table 1 details by Altunkaynak (2010, 2013) and also by Ebtehaj and Bonakdari
Comparison between fuzzy logic and Genetic Algorithm. (2014) and Najafzadeh et al. (2017) and Ouyang (2017). The novel
Issues of comparison Fuzzy logic Genetic algorithm
GENOFIS application allows that drawbacks presented by the regular
Sugeno approach are eliminated by a modified FIS on the consequent
Soft computing Yes Yes part and at the same time solves the entanglement problems resulting
Mathematical Yes No from ANFIS approach process. The entanglement problems are in terms
complexity
of lack of simplicity and time effectiveness. The novel GENOFIS solves
Problem solving Depends on probability Depends on fitness/
and input parameters Objective function the aforementioned entanglement problems by considering equal the
IF-THEN rules Yes No number of antecedents (premises) and consequents. Therefore, the
Learning scheme Supervised Non-supervised novel GENOFIS reduces the number of IF-THEN rules and time used to
Processing time Little High
process the final output. Finally, in this study, the Shields entrainment
CH electing Distributed algorithm Centralized algorithm
function (Ycr) of uniform bed grain particles under unidirectional flow
CH: Cluster head. conditions was predicted by using the observed shear Reynolds number
(Re*). Additionally, a comparative study between novel GENOFIS and
defined as a hybrid-learning algorithm that utilizes gradient-descent ANFIS is accomplished. Eventually, the novel GENOFIS model is pro-
and least-squares (LS) methods to improve antecedent (premise) and posed as a novel and practical alternative to the ANFIS model for
consequent parameters, respectively. Though, the LS method utilizes modeling the Shields entrainment function (Ycr) of uniform bed grain
derivatives to arrive at an optimal solution. This indicates that used particles in unidirectional flow under smooth, transitional and rough
functions should always be continuous, otherwise optimization proce- flow conditions. In this study, in order to accurately split the data space
dure fails. Therefore, ANFIS works definitely under restrictive pre- into accurate fuzzy sets, a fuzzy logic clustering method is used. In the
sumptions such as linearity, normality, and constant variance (Özger, literature, the most cited fuzzy logic clustering approaches are the
2009; Akrami et al., 2013; Kitsikoudis et al., 2016; Spiliotis et al., Gustafson Kessel (GK) approach (Gustafson and Kessel, 1979) and
2018). Hence it can be clearly seen that ANFIS is inaccurate to deal with Subtractive clustering (SC) approach (Chiu, 1996). The GK approach is
highly non-linear problems. Moreover, the ANFIS model parameter based on iterative minimization of the objective functions whereas SC is
estimations are reached by considering the gradient-descent and LS based on non-iterative minimization of the objective functions. In the
methods (Jang, 1993). Therefore, the basic ANFIS approach demands present study, the SC approach is used to compute the Membership
differentiable and continuous linear target function at each and every Functions (MFs) of the Fuzzy Inference Systems (FIS) by using MATLAB
point in the system structure. In case of a nonlinear target function, it commercial software together with Genetic Algorithm optimization
definitely becomes difficult to take derivative and find an optimal so- operation for both ANFIS and GENOFIS. The selection of the best MFs
lution. On the other hand, in order to bring a novel solution to the was made after developing numerous models with different MF struc-
aforementioned problems resulting from ANFIS approach; the novel tures such as Gaussian (Bell shape), trapezoidal, triangular and finding
GENOFIS model was developed by improving consequent part of the that as also supported by Moosavi et al. (2013) and Gholami et al.
Sugeno consequent part so that it can be defined at the same time if (2017), the Gaussian shape is the best to be used. Fig. 4 depicts the
needed as constant, linear and non-linear function options. To optimize flowchart of calculation for both ANFIS and novel GENOFIS.
the novel GENOFIS model parameters, Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are
used. The GAs advantages and previous applications are discussed in

6
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
Fig. 4. Flowchart of calculation of ANFIS and developed novel GENOFIS for the prediction of Shields entrainment function values.
2.4. Performance evaluation criteria
Solomatine and Shrestha (2009) and others have demonstrated that
among many other available model evaluation criteria in the literature,
root-mean-square error (RMSE) and the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of
efficiency (CE) are most widely utilized and accepted (Nash and
Sutcliffe (1970); Bowden et al., 2013) also mentioned that RMSE is a
very good indicator of the degree of accuracy of a model. Hence, RMSE
and CE are utilized to evaluate the performances of ANFIS and novel
GENOFIS models in this present study. The following equation is used
to calculate the root mean square error (RMSE):
N
1 nique (Shields, 1936); which involves determination of critical shear
RMSE =
N
∑ (Ycrpi−Ycrmi )2
i=1
where N is the total number of measurements; Ycrpi and Ycrmi are the
predicted and modeled Shields entrainment values, respectively. For a
perfect model RMSE equals to 0 and as the perfection of a model re-
duces the inconsistency between the actual data and predicted model
values increases, RMSE value also increases. As regards the calculation
of efficiency (CE) following equation is used:
N
⎡ ∑ (Ycrpi − Ycrmi )2 ⎤
CE = ⎢1 − iN= 1 ⎥
∑i = 1 (Ycrmi − Ycrm )2 ⎦
⎣ (11)
where Ycrm is the mean predicted Shield entrainment value. CE of a
model is considered acceptable when its values are greater than 0.5
(Moriasi et al., 2007; Altunkaynak and Nigussie, 2015). Moreover,
Donigian and Love (2003), Wang and Altunkaynak (2011) and
Altunkaynak and Wang (2012) categorized the performance of a pre-
dictive model as follows: If CE values are in the range 0.65–0.75, the
performance of the model is fair, if CE values are in the range
0.75–0.85, the performance is good and if CE results are greater than
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
0.85, the performance is very good.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Observed data and data analysis
Both ANFIS and novel GENOFIS models were implemented to model
the Shields entrainment function. As indicated in the “Theory estab-
lishment” section, ANFIS and GENOFIS models were developed to
predict the Shields entrainment function for three different Shields
entrainment function modeling approaches, extrapolation base tech-
stress values that result from a low or completely a zero reference
(10)
transport frequency from jointed shear stress and bed load entrainment
measurements. The visual base technique (Yalin and Karahan, 1979) is
a direct visual observation of sediment entrainment from a given bed
shear stress and development of competence functions (Wilcock, 1988;
Yalin and da Silva, 2001; Ali and Dey, 2016; Dey and Ali, 2018). The
development of competence functions technique relates the bed shear
stress to the entrainment of the biggest sediment particle. The results of
these predicting models were then evaluated in terms of their perfor-
mance in predicting the Shields entrainment function or dimensionless
shear stress.
The data used herein was collected from three different previous
most cited researches in terms of sediment incipient motion. Exploited
data are from Yalin and Karahan (1979), Buffington and Montgomery
(1997) and Yalin and da Silva (2001). Those data were collected and
digitized using the software webPlotDigitizer-3.8. Fig. 5 depicts plots
from which the data was collected. Fig. 5b depicts the plot for visual-
based data (Yalin and Karahan, 1979; Dey and Ali, 2018), Fig. 5a de-
picts the plot for reference-based data (Buffington and Montgomery,
1997) and Fig. 5c depicts the plot for competence-based data (Yalin and
7
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Fig. 5. Data plots for reference (a), visual (b) and competence (c) based incipient motion approaches.

Table 2 Kennard and Stone (1969) have described the SSMD. The SSMD offers
Statistical measurements of employed experimental data (Buffington and the possibility to extract data subsets in a way that the extracted subsets
Montgomery, 1997). form the original data set contains minimum similarities with max-
Statistical measures Ycr Re* imum dissimilarities assessed between included members. Moreover,
the use of SSMD offers the unique possibility to increase the generality
Minimum value 0.010 0.035 in a dataset by extracting data in a way that do not centralize to the
Maximum value 0.078 363.1
special space; instead, it incorporates the data from the center to the
Mean value 0.036 76.1
Standard deviation 0.020 107.6 defined dataset boundary. Lajiness and Watson (2008) also stressed that
Skewness coefficient 0.539 1.306 by using the SSMD to divide the original dataset, provides highest
dissimilarities between subsets that cover the original dataset. There-
*
Both Re* and Ycr are dimensionless. fore, 60% and 40% (remaining) of observed data were used for cali-
bration (training) and to validate the performance of the model, re-
da Silva, 2001; Hutter and Wang, 2016). According to Altunkaynak and spectively, in this present study. The available data is very diverse as
Şen (2007) and Özger (2009), each data set should be divided into two they were collected from different experimental results that used dif-
groups before the development of the model. In order to divide the ferent techniques to define the threshold of the incipient motion of
original dataset into train and test data sets, the subset selection of sediment. A reference based technique utilizes statistical values rather
maximum dissimilarity method (SSMD) is applied. The original datasets than full obtained values and thus data collected from this technique
are divided into 60% for train dataset and 40% for the test dataset. demonstrates smaller shear Reynolds numbers related to the Shields

8
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Table 3 Table 5
Statistical measures of employed experimental data (Yalin and Karahan, 1979). ANFIS approach fuzzy rule bases.
Statistical measures Ycr Re* Rule no. Antecedent Consequent
Re* Ycr
Minimum value 0.029 0.57
Maximum value 0.187 1173.75 ANFIS (reference) 1 L1 Ycr = 0.22(Re*)-0.12
Mean value 0.069 184.55 2 L2 Ycr = 0.04(Re*)-0.08
Standard deviation 0.044 286.23 3 L3 Ycr = 0.12(Re*)-0.04
Skewness coefficient 1.355 2.08 4 T1 Ycr = 0.02(Re*)-0.004
5 T2 Ycr = 0.0035(Re*)-0.02
* Both Re* and Ycr are dimensionless. 6 T3 Ycr = 0.048(Re*)-0.001
7 R1 Ycr = 0.05(Re*)-0.002
8 R2 Ycr = 0.06(Re*)-0.003
Table 4
9 R3 Ycr = 0.11(Re*)-0.014
Statistical measures of employed experimental data (Yalin and da Silva, 2001).
ANFIS (visual) 1 L1 Ycr = 0.025(Re*)-0.11
Statistical measures Ycr Re* 2 L2 Ycr = 0.16(Re*)-0.10
3 L3 Ycr = 0.18(Re*)-0.04
Minimum value 0.03 2.775 4 T1 Ycr = 0.06(Re*)-0.004
Maximum value 0.099 19020.9 5 R1 Ycr = 0.064(Re*)-0.004
Mean value 0.049 1975.9
Standard deviation 0.0168 4113.6 ANFIS (competence) 1 L1 Ycr = 0.14(Re*)-0.038
Skewness coefficient 1.554 2.795 2 L2 Ycr = -0.17(Re*) + 0.51
3 L3 Ycr = -0.12(Re*)-0.15
* Both Re* and Ycr are dimensionless. 4 T1 Ycr = -0.20(Re*)-0.13
5 T2 Ycr = 0.025(Re*)-0.0065
6 T3 Ycr = 0.0068(Re*)-0.008
entrainment function values or the dimensionless shear stress than in 7 R1 Ycr = − 0.086(Re*) + 0.046
e.g. visual technique that was used by Yalin and Karahan (1979); it can 8 R2 Ycr = 0.018(Re*)-0.06
be seen that shear Reynolds numbers in Table 3 that are higher than 9 R3 Ycr = 1.6x10-7(Re*) + 4.9.10-7
those presented in Table 2. Furthermore, Table 4 contains data obtained
* Both Re* and Ycr are dimensionless.
from a development of competence function based technique used by
Yalin and da Silva (2001). As can be seen in Table 4, shear Reynolds
and Montgomery (1997), Yalin and Karahan (1979) and Yalin and da
values are even higher than of those in Table 2 and Table 3 with respect
Silva (2001), in which only shear Reynolds number was used to predict
to Shields entrainment function, which is because the technique used to
the Shields entrainment function. Table 5 and Table 6 present the de-
define the incipient motion relies on selective transport (Wilcock 1988).
cision matrix (fuzzy rules) at the end of the calibration phase for both
The selective transport relates the bed shear stress to the largest mobile
ANFIS and GENOFIS models, respectively. As it can be seen in Table 5
grain size (Jiang and Haff, 1993). The data collected from the research
ANFIS tool has a drawback of representing the consequent part of the
of Yalin and da Silva (2001), are exposed in Table 4. Furthermore,
model either as a constant or a linear function, which means that it does
statistically, an anticipated observation from the collected data, shows
not allow representing the consequent part of the model as a constant,
that the ANFIS and GENOFIS model results obtained using data from
linear and non-linear or integration of them, simultaneously. Because of
Table 2 will likely give higher prediction error due to relatively bigger
this disadvantage, the ANFIS model can yield inaccurate results when it
standard deviation considering the available maximum and minimum
comes to non-linear problems such as the definition of the Shields en-
Shield entrainment function (Ycr) values and shear Reynolds number
trainment function. However, by reconsidering the same MFs as used
(Re*). All data sets were collected from uniform grain material and non-
for the ANFIS, but this time redefining the parameters of the MFs using
viscous fluid base models. Additionally, these data were obtained from
GAs optimization technique, the developed novel GENOFIS provides
laboratory experiments performed for sand bedded open channels
the ability to represent the consequent part of the Sugeno FIS as any
under unidirectional flows. Some of the statistical parameters of the
function such as polynomial, logarithmic, Gaussian, etc. or combination
data used herein are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 for re-
of them, simultaneously. After the determination of FIS using GAs op-
ference, visual and development of competence functions based tech-
timization technique, the centroid approach for defuzzification process
nique, respectively.
is performed to define the final Ycr optimized values.
In this present study, the consequent part of the newly GENOFIS
3.2. Application of ANFIS versus GENOFIS model is defined as polynomial functions for sediment incipient motion
or threshold of sediment entrainment under smooth, transitional and
It is well known that the ANFIS tool allows representing consequent rough flow conditions (see Table 6). Fuzzy sets applied herein to de-
part either as a constant or a linear function. This implies that not only a velop both ANFIS and GENOFIS models for reference, visual and
non-linear function is not allowed but also the consequent part of the competence techniques are depicted in Figs. 6, 7 and 8, respectively.
model cannot be represented with both the constant and linear func- Model parameters of Gaussian-type membership functions for the
tion, simultaneously. In this present study, to overcome the short- GENOFIS approach are presented in Table 7 and 8. The GAs tool was
comings of ANFIS, a new model is developed with the combination of used to optimize the antecedent and consequent parameters. For both
modified Sugeno FIS and GAs and named as GENOFIS which is capable ANFIS and GENOFIS models the same number of membership functions
of representing the consequent part of the model with constant linear or was used. Nine fuzzy sets are depicted as Laminar 1 (L1), Laminar 2
non-linear functions or even with a combination of them, at the same (L2), Laminar 3 (L3), Transitional 1 (T1), Transitional 2 (T2), Transi-
time. Furthermore, antecedent and consequent parameters are opti- tional 3 (T3), Rough 1 (R1), Rough 2 (R2) and Rough 3 (R3). In Tur-
mized by the GAs tool. The ANFIS and GENOFIS model results are bulent flow, fuzzy sets were separated as follows; Rough 1 (R1), Rough
evaluated quantitatively based on RMSE and CE values. These models 2 (R2) and Rough 3 (R3)) for reference-based approach), Laminar 1
are used to define the Shields Entrainment function as the consequent (L1), Laminar 2 (L2), Laminar 3 (L3), Transitional 1 (T1) and Rough 1
part of the model by using the shear Reynolds number which is selected (R1) for visual-based approach. Additionally, nine fuzzy sets were used
as the sole antecedent parts of both ANFIS and GENOFIS models. Only for competence-based approach and in the latter; fuzzy sets were di-
the shear Reynolds number is considered as the sole antecedent value in vided as similarly as in the reference-based approach. For ANFIS nine
both models because the models are trained by using data of Buffington

9
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
Table 6
GENOFIS approach fuzzy rule bases.
Rule no. Antecedent
Re*
GENOFIS (reference) 1 L(1,2,3)
2 T(1,2,3)
3 R(1,2,3)
GENOFIS (visual) 1 L(1,2,3)
2 T(1)
3 R(1)
GENOFIS (competence) 1 L(1,2,3)
2 T(1,2,3)
3 R(1,2,3)
* Both Re* and Ycr are dimensionless.
consequent linear outputs with nine fuzzy rules were used whereas for
the GENOFIS model all laminar flow sub-parts were assigned to one
consequent output and the same procedure was performed for the
transitional flow and turbulent flow parts by assigning each of them to
one consequent output as polynomial functions (see Table 6).
4. Results and discussion
Due to the extremely complex interrelation between the hydro-
dynamic forces caused by the fluid and the bed sediment particles with
different packing conditions and high turbulence that occurs near the
bed; the developed analytical approaches cannot accurately capture the
interrelationship between bed-sediment-particle and fluid in motion
easily (Dey and Ali, 2018). The accuracy of Adaptive Neural Fuzzy
Inference System (ANFIS) and novel Geno Fuzzy Inference System
(GENOFIS) models in predicting Shields entrainment function (Ycr) is
investigated by utilizing shear Reynolds number (Re*) as input for three
different techniques; namely reference, visual and competence based
techniques. 123, 73 and 50 data points were used for reference, com-
petence, and visual-based techniques, respectively. For the develop-
ment of the model, 72, 43 and 30 data points were used for training
(calibration) phase and remaining 51, 30 and 20 data points were used
for testing phase (prediction) for reference, competence and visual
based techniques, respectively. ANFIS and newly developed GENOFIS
models were simulated and fuzzy sets of the models are obtained after
the training phase for ANFIS and developed GENOFIS models which are
depicted in Figs. 6, 7, and 8. Also, the decision matrix (rule bases) is
demonstrated in Tables 5 and 6. In the ANFIS model, the antecedent
(fuzzy sets) and consequent parameters are trained by an artificial
Fig. 6. ANFIS and GENOFIS models fuzzy sets for Re* under the reference-based approach.
10
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
Consequent
Ycr
Ycr = a1(Re*)6 + b1(Re*)5 + c1(Re*)4 + d1(Re*)3 + e1(Re*)2 + f1(Re*) + g1
Ycr = a2(Re*)6 + b2(Re*)5 + c2(Re*)4 + d2(Re*)3 + e2(Re*)2 + f2(Re*) + g2
Ycr = a3(Re*)6 + b3(Re*)5 + c3(Re*)4 + d3(Re*)3 + e3(Re*)2 + f3(Re*) + g3
Ycr = b1(Re*)5 + c1(Re*)4 + d1(Re*)3 + e1(Re*)2 + f1(Re*) + g1
Ycr = a2(Re*)6 + b2(Re*)5 + c2(Re*)4 + d2(Re*)3 + e2(Re*)2 + f2(Re*) + g2
Ycr = a3(Re*)6 + b3(Re*)5 + c3(Re*)4 + d3(Re*)3 + e3(Re*)2 + f3(Re*) + g3
Ycr = f1Re* + g1
Ycr = e2(Re*)2 + f2Re* + g2
Ycr = d3(Re*)3 + e3(Re*)2 + f3Re* + g3
neural network (ANN) and least square method, respectively whereas
GENOFIS model trains antecedent parameters (fuzzy sets) and con-
sequent parameters only by the GAs tool. The consequent parameters of
ANFIS and GENOFIS models for reference, competence, and visual-
based techniques are presented in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. In
Table 6, the equations chosen to assume the processes in the consequent
part of the GENOFIS model are presented for three different techniques;
these functions were chosen after the optimization of the generalized
consequent part of the GENOFIS presented in Theory establishment
section, Geno-fuzzy inference system subsection. Artificial intelligence
methods such as Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Fuzzy Logic (FL) and
Genetic Programming (GP) are black-box modeling tools. Likewise, the
proposed novel GENOFIS and ANFIS models are also black-box methods
which transform the input data to output data mathematically (not
using physical concepts). In this study, the consequent functions are
generated by published data which was divided into two parts for
training (calibration) and validation (prediction) phases. Moreover,
antecedent parameters (fuzzy sets) and consequent parameters (con-
sequent functions) are optimized with training (calibration) data by
utilizing the GAs tool. Subsequently, GENOFIS model is validated with
remaining (testing) data. Furthermore, knowing that the sediment en-
trainment behave in a different way following the type of flow condi-
tions (Ebtehaj et al., 2017; Spiliotis et al., 2018; Wan Mohtar et al.,
2018); the novel GENOFIS model trained with the GA and compared to
the published experimental data (Yalin and Karahan, 1979; Buffington
and Montgomery, 1997; Yalin and da Silva, 2001) generated the best
optimal functions for the consequent part of the improved SUGENO
fuzzy inference system as presented in Table 6. Consequently, the novel
GENOFIS model offers a practical solution to mathematically represent
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
Fig. 7. ANFIS and GENOFIS models fuzzy sets for Re* under the visual-based approach.
the behavior of sediment entrainment in all types of individual
boundaries and flow conditions by offering different types of functions
at the same time, unlike ANFIS that offers only linear or constant
functions and not both in the same model. The constant parameters of
functions (consequent outputs) of GENOFIS model for laminar, transi-
tional and turbulent flows with reference, competence, and visual-
based techniques after GA training and optimization processes, are
presented in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. In this study, we applied the
PAWN approach to investigate the sensitivity for Shear Reynolds
number (Re*) as a sole input for all performed models in all hydro-
dynamic flow conditions. PAWN approach was explained in details by
Pianosi and Wagener (2015). PAWN is an abbreviation derived from
Pianosi and Wagener. PAWN approach allows investigating the pro-
pagation of Shear Reynolds number (Re*) uncertainty, and sensitivity
when used a sole input to predict the Shields entrainment function
under hydrodynamically smooth, transitional and rough flow condi-
tions. We, therefore, consider the model output which is the Shields
entrainment function when the predicted Ycr values are highly corre-
lated to the observed Ycr values under feasible ranges or confidence
ranges of variation of Re* as given in Table 9. The confidence ranges are
computed and defined in a way that model training with the defined
range would exhibit a sensible output performance. The PAWN ap-
proach to defining the sensibility of model parameters uses a coefficient
of determination (R2) that is evaluated between computed and
Fig. 8. ANFIS and GENOFIS models fuzzy sets for Re* under the competence-based approach.
11
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
observed outcome. According to Pianosi and Wagener (2015), any
model input parameter is defined as sensitive to the model output when
an R2 is higher than 60 (R2>60). R2 is defined as follows,
R2 = 1 − VAR(e)/VAR(q) (12)
where VAR (e) defines the variance of training stochastic terms or er-
rors and VAR (q) defines the variance of observed Shields entrainment
values. The confidence ranges were defined. Moreover, for the con-
fidence level definition; in this study, an approach discussed by Brase
and Brase (2009) was applied. The confidence band for the dataset
means μ is defined as,
− s − s
[x − tc , x + tc
n n (13)
where tc defines the critical values for the data distribution for con-
−
fidence level c. x defines the mean value, s is the sample standard
deviation, n define the number of sampled data. The validation of the
confidence interval is qualified as a dynamic approach in the categor-
ization process because it requires executing the model as also stressed
by Banks (1998) and Petty (2012). The validation process involves a
comparative approach (Petty, 2012); during this process, an observed
Shields entrainment function value (Ycr) is compared to the Shield en-
trainment value (Ycr) obtained when the model is executed for the
specific confidence range or band and the value performance is re-
corded. Moreover, R2is calculated for the computed and observed
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Table 7
Gaussian-type MF parameters for the GENOFIS model.
Incipient motion approach Laminar Transitional

a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2

Competence approach 0 0 0 0 0 −0.06 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.06 −0.21 0.21

Visual approach 0 −0.06 0.01 0.11 −0.03 0.1 0.13 −74.2 773.4 −3346.7 7696.7 9921.7 6796.7 −1932.9
Reference approach −0.011 9.10−5 0.04 0.01 −0.04 −0.03 −0.03 18.14 −147.09 492.52 −871.8 860.59 −449.27 96.94

outcome with an estimate of a confidence limit, separately for in-
dividual boundaries generated from the confidence bands and flow
conditions presented in this study. The results are presented in Table 9
accordingly. Pandis (2015) discussed in detail how to calculate con-
fidence limits. The parametric outcomes described in Table 9 for the
sensitivity analysis by using the PAWN approach, indicate an increase
of the sensitivity for the shear Reynolds number (Re*) as an input to-
wards the output which is the Shields entrainment function (Ycr) when
GENOFIS was performed. This means that the GENOFIS model has
successfully better trained even data samples that remain very distant
from the mean of the sampled data than the ANFIS model. Performance
of these two models was evaluated using RMSE and CE as indicator
criteria. Good prediction accuracy was yielded by the ANFIS and
GENOFIS approaches where solely shear Reynolds number was used as
input into the models.
Results of RMSE and CE values are illustrated in Table 10. It can be
seen that RMSE values of ANFIS model for reference, competence, and
visual-based techniques are found to be
6.84 × 10−3, 4.77 × 10−3, 2.19 × 10−3 , whereas 2.33 × 10−3,
1.93 × 10−3, 9.35 × 10−4 are the RMSE values of GENOFIS model for
reference, competence, and visual-based techniques are found to be,
respectively. Obviously, the GENOFIS model provided relatively
smaller RMSE values than the ANFIS model for reference, competence,
and visual-based techniques. This implies that the GENOFIS model
yielded better prediction accuracy of Shields entrainment function than
the ANFIS model for all techniques. For the ANFIS model, CE values
under reference, competence, and visual-based techniques are calcu-
lated as 0.95, 0.98 and 0.98, and for the GENOFIS model CE values are
found as 0.98, 0.99 and 0.99, respectively. The GENOFIS model has
relatively smaller RMSE values and relatively bigger CE values com-
pared to the ANFIS model. Moreover, a number of inputs, processing
time and IF-THEN rules number are presented in Table 10 for com-
parative purposes. Both ANFIS and novel GENOFIS used one single
input, however in order to reach the final results, 9, 5 and 9 IF-THEN
rules have been applied for ANFIS based models for reference, visual
and competence-based approach respectively whereas, 3,3 and 3 IF-
THEN rules have been applied for GENOFIS based models for reference,
visual and competence-based approach respectively. This shows that
GENOFIS model has reduced significantly the entanglement that results
from using more IF-THEN rules in a given fuzzy model (Jovanovic et al.,
2004; Akrami et al., 2013). In Table 4, also the ANFIS and GENOFIS
processing time are presented for reference, visual and competence-
based approaches. Slightly ANFIS based models have exhibited shorter
periods for the processing of the final results compared to the novel
GENOFIS but overall the novel GENOFIS based model exhibited better
performance than ANFIS following the evaluation criteria shown in
Table 10. Consequently; this present study has chosen GENOFIS as the
best model following its smaller RMSE and the larger CE values as
aforementioned and presented in Table 10. Based on these indicator
criteria, the prediction accuracy of the Shields entrainment function by
GENOFIS model is much better than the ANFIS model for reference,
competence, and visual-based techniques. According to the calculated
CE values from prediction values of ANFIS and developed GENOFIS
models, both models have exhibited very good performance in terms of
Shields entrainment function prediction. However, GENOFIS model
performed superior to the ANFIS model for all Shields entrainment
functions (Ycr). Furthermore, RMSE values calculated from GENOFIS
model results are lower than those calculated from the ANFIS model
results for reference, visual and competence based techniques. RMSE
values of ANFIS and GENOFIS models obtained from the reference
based data are higher than in visual and competence based models
because of previous discussed high fluctuations available in Buffington
and Montgomery data as it can be seen from the standard deviation in
Table 2.
This definitely indicates that the predicted Ycr values by novel
GENOFIS model are significantly better than those of Ycr values pre-
dicted by the ANFIS model. By referring to Donigian and Love (2003)
and Altunkaynak and Nigussie (2015) and taking evaluation criteria
RMSE and CE into consideration; the performance of ANFIS model for
prediction of Shields entrainment function under reference, competence
and visual based techniques is good whereas the prediction perfor-
mance of GENOFIS model is very good.
Additionally, the predictions of Shields entrainment function (Ycr)
by ANFIS and GENOFIS and corresponding observed values of Shields
entrainment function versus shear Reynolds number (Re*) values are
plotted in a logarithmic scale as shown in Figs. 9, 10 and 11, respec-
tively. Considering Re* and referring to Shields (1936), Yalin and
Karahan (1979) and many other researchers; in the present study ANFIS
and novel GENOFIS results show that for small Re* numbers (Re*≤ 1.5),
Shields entrainment values are strongly dependent on shear Reynolds
number (Re*). For larger values of shear Reynolds number, Shields
entrainment values become independent from shear Reynolds numbers
and approximate to a constant value for Re* ≥ 3. According to Fig. 9 the
predicted Shields entrainment values by GENOFIS model tend to follow
exactly the observed Shields entrainment data of reference approach
while the ANFIS model prediction values also captured the observed
Shields entrainment data. Clearly, the GENOFIS model results follow
the corresponding observed Shields entrainment data of reference ap-
proach closer than the ANFIS model results. As regards the visual ap-
proach, Fig. 10 revealed that the prediction values of GENOFIS model
quiet captured the observed Shields entrainment data better than the
ANFIS model results. For the competence approach, Fig. 11 shows that

Table 8
Gaussian-type MF parameters for the GENOFIS model.
Incipient motion approach Turbulent

a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3

Competence approach 0 0 0 0.004 −0.043 0.145 −0.13

Visual approach −0.07 1.11 −6.79 22.03 39.97 38.43 −15.25
Reference approach −3481 45,504 −2.4.105 7.1.105 -106 106 −3.6.105

12
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Table 9
Model parameters of the ANFIS and GENOFIS models, their units of measurements and confidence ranges and levels.
Model type Flow conditions Input parameters uom Sensitivity (PAWN) Individual boundary Confidence limit (%)
ANFIS GENOFIS ANFIS GENOFIS

Smooth Re* Dimensionless 0.97 0.98 [-1.3, 1.2] 95% 95%

Reference based model Transitional Re* Dimensionless 0.77 0.85 [1.1, 1.7] 75% 75%
Rough Re* Dimensionless 0.86 0.88 [1.65, 2.7] 85% 85%
Visual based model Smooth Re* Dimensionless 0.96 0.98 [-1.2, 1.2] 95% 95%
Transitional Re* Dimensionless 0.95 0.98 [1.15, 1.94] 95% 95%
Rough Re* Dimensionless 0.84 0.89 [1.8, 2.8] 80% 80%
Competence based model Smooth Re* Dimensionless 0.98 1 [0.4, 1.2] 95% 95%
Transitional Re* Dimensionless 0.94 1 [1.15, 1.92] 92% 92%
Smooth Re* Dimensionless 0.96 1 [1.85, 4.28] 95% 95%

Re* is dimensionless, PAWN is defined by R2 and is dimensionless and uom is unity of measurement.

the GENOFIS model results are exactly matched with the corresponding
observed Shields entrainment data of competence approach under
smooth, transitional and rough flow conditions. Whereas the ANFIS
model values follow the observed data closely for smooth flow condi-
tion but particularly for transitional condition over predicted the ob-
served data and for rough flow condition under predicted observed
data. This means that the prediction performance of the ANFIS model is
particularly fair for competence approach under transitional and rough
flow conditions. However, it has been observed that the performance of
GENOFIS model is enhanced with relatively larger sets of experimental
data. Besides, GENOFIS performed very well for visual and reference
based models compared to reference-based data. This is because the
used data of Yalin and Karahan (1979) and Yalin and da Silva (2001)
(visual and reference based models) was collected under deterministic
approaches whereas reference-based data used herein was collected by
using a deterministic approach considering only statistical values.
Therefore, it was not possible for the reference-based approach to re-
present the extreme and lowest crisp values which eventually help to
define fuzzy sets and allow capturing the available initial and extreme
Shield entrainment conditions in fuzzification process. The high viscous
forces present in smooth flow condition were overcome by assigning
higher fuzzy membership degrees to lower shear Reynolds numbers in
order to make them be part of the fuzzy Rough 3 (R3) set which cor-
responds to extreme Shield entrainment values. Gaussian MF types
were used in all hydrodynamic flow conditions because of the ad-
vantage of Gaussian distribution in which variables tend towards a
normal distribution. The latter was therefore very useful because of the
available experimental data used herein that had considerable fluc-
tuations (Buffington and Montgomery, 1997). Using developed GEN-
OFIS model for high shear Reynolds values in gravel-bedded rivers
(gravel-bedded rivers which were used by Buffington and Montgomery,
1997), Shield entrainment values varied in range 0.056–0.076 and
completely stayed in the range described by Buffington and
Montgomery (1997) in gravel-bedded river under rough flow condi-
tions. Additionally, GENOFIS model performed very well for visual and
competence-based models where Shields entrainment values for rough
flow conditions varied between 0.042 and 0.048 and 0.041–0.046 for
visual and competence, respectively. These results completely
encapsulate the findings of Yalin and Karahan (1979), Miller et al.
(1977) and Yalin and da Silva (2001) where Shields entrainment values
under rough flow conditions were found to be 0.045, 0.047 and 0.043,
respectively. On top of that the novel GENOFIS model offers the ability
to define the Shields entrainment function (Ycr) that initiates the sedi-
ment entrainment for each and every defined corresponding shear
Reynolds number (Re*) in all flow conditions, unlike previous re-
searchers who defined the critical dimensionless shear stress in turbu-
lent flows only (Shields, 1936; Yalin and Karahan, 1979; Yalin and da
Silva, 2001; Cao et al., 2006; Tamburrino et al., 2016). The results of
this present study revealed that developed GENOFIS model out-
performed the ANFIS model in predicting Shields entrainment data in
all techniques for smooth, transitional and rough flow conditions. The
observed Shields’s entrainment function versus predicted Shields’ en-
trainment function by ANFIS and GENOFIS models for the reference,
competence, and visual-based approaches are plotted with the exact
line (1:1) in Fig. 12. The visual investigation of these figures indicates a
strong consistency exhibited between predicted Shields’ entrainment
function values by ANFIS and GENOFIS models and corresponding
observed Shields entrainment function data as shown in Fig. 12. As can
be seen from Fig. 12a, the prediction results of the GENOFIS model for
the reference based approach quietly scattered around the exact line
while the scattering is slightly more for the predicted values by ANFIS
around exact line compared to GENOFIS model results. This means that
GENOFIS model has a very good performance in terms of prediction of
Shields entrainment function for the reference-based approach. Like-
wise, Fig. 12b illustrates the results of ANFIS and GENOFIS models and
corresponding observed data of the competence-based approach dis-
tributed around the exact line. The predicted values of GENOFIS mode
matched almost exactly with the corresponding observed data of
competence-based approach; while the ANFIS model results exhibit a
good agreement with observed data which implies that, GENOFIS
model has relatively better accuracy than ANFIS model for competency-
based approach. This is to say that the developed GENOFIS model
outperformed the ANFIS model for prediction of Shields’ entrainment
function using observed data of the reference and competence-based
approaches. Similarly, the predicted values by GENOFIS model re-
markably follow the data of visual-based approach as depicted in

Table 10
Performance Comparison of ANFIS and GENOFIS models in terms of the RMSE and CE values.
Reference based approach Visual based approach Competence based approach

Evaluation criterio ANFIS GENOFIS ANFIS GENOFIS ANFIS GENOFIS

Number of inputs 1 1 1 1 1 1
Processing time 586 936 476 742 425 695
IF-THEN rules 9 3 5 3 9 3
RMSE 6.84 × 10−3 2.33 × 10−3 4.77 × 10−3 1.93 × 10−3 2.19 × 10−3 9.35 × 10−4
CE 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.99

*
RMSE is dimensionless and *Processing time is in seconds.

13
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Fig. 9. Shields Entrainment Function of observed and predicted dimensionless shear stress of the Buffington and Montgomery collective data for reference approach.

Fig. 6c. On the other hand, the results of the ANFIS model is slightly time. In general, the training process using Genetic Algorithms (GAs)
scattered around the exact line referring to the relatively lower per- for GENOFIS manifested relatively longer output processing time while
formance of the ANFIS model for visual-based approach data. Conse- converging to the final solution compared to Artificial Neural Networks
quently, the results of this present study indicate that the incorporation based ANFIS.
of modified Sugeno FIS approach and GAs tool further improved the
accuracy of GENOFIS model significantly for the reference, compe-
5. Conclusions
tence, and visual-based approaches. It is to note that the developed
GENOFIS model can accurately predict Shields entrainment function
Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) tool is based on
better than the ANFIS model without expensive computation effort for
Sugeno Fuzzy Inference System (Sugeno FIS). However, the ANFIS
all three different techniques that were used to define the threshold of
model has a shortcoming in defining the consequent part of the model.
the sediment incipient motion under smooth, transitional and rough
That is, it could only be represented either as a constant or a linear
flow conditions. The GENOFIS and ANFIS model results are compared
function. This implies that ANFIS is not capable of describing con-
with experimental data quantitatively and qualitatively and close si-
sequent part of the model simultaneously as a constant, linear, non-
milarity is found under all hydrodynamic flow conditions. Additionally,
linear or combination of them. In this present study, Geno-Fuzzy
the processing time of a model is so important in order to be more
Inferences System (GENOFIS) is introduced with the incorporation of
useful nowadays. In this study, the processing time used for the training
improved Sugeno FIS and Genetic Algorithms (GAs) tool, which im-
process of both ANFIS and GENOFIS for 1000 iterations was recorded.
proved the accuracy significantly, in predicting the Shields’ entrain-
586 s, 476 s, and 425 s were recorded for the training process of re-
ment values. The ANFIS and developed GENOFIS models are im-
ference, visual and competence based ANFIS models whereas 936 s,
plemented to predict sediment incipient motion by utilizing the
742 s and 695 s were recorded for the training process of reference,
reference, competence, and visual-based data under smooth, transi-
visual and competence based GENOFIS models. Consequently, compe-
tional and rough flow conditions, respectively. The prediction perfor-
tence based ANFIS model has the least output processing time whereas
mance of the ANFIS and GENOFIS models is evaluated quantitatively by
Competence-based GENOFIS model has the highest output processing
taking calculated root-mean-square error (RMSE) and coefficient of

Fig. 10. Shields Entrainment Function of observed and predicted dimensionless shear stress of the Yalin and Karahan collective data for visual approach.

14
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952

Fig. 11. Shields Entrainment Function of observed and predicted dimensionless shear stress of the Yalin and da Silva data for competence approach.

Fig. 12. Comparison of Shields entrainment function results predicted by ANFIS and GENOFIS and observed Shields entrainment function data for three different
approaches for reference-based approach (a), competence based approach (b) and visual-based approach (c).

15
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
efficiency (CE) values into consideration. Clearly, developed GENOFIS
model outperformed the ANFIS model for the reference, competence,
and visual-based data under smooth, transitional and rough flow con-
ditions based on RMSE and CE values as performance criteria.
Moreover, the prediction performance of the ANFIS and GENOFIS
models is investigated in terms of visual analysis. The ANFIS and novel
GENOFIS performances were evaluated in predicting the instantaneous
Shields’ entrainment values (Ycr), which is defined in terms of shear
Reynolds number (Re*) in sand-bedded open channels under unidirec-
tional flow regime. The GENOFIS exhibited higher performance than
conventional ANFIS model in predicting the Shields entrainment values
for all considered data under smooth, transitional and rough flow
conditions. In this present study, sand beds with uniform packing and
direction under unidirectional flow were considered. These considera-
tions helped the fuzzy expert system to define the Shields’ entrainment
values for the initiation of motion from weak to general motion of se-
diments under all hydrodynamic flow conditions and to define the fuzzy
transition of motion that varies from weak to general motion. The fuzzy
transition was defined with Shields entrainment values in terms of
fuzzy sets. As a result, developed GENOFIS is recommended to be used
in predicting the Shields entrainment values in gravel and sand bedded
open channels with uniform packing and direction of sediment particles
under unidirectional flow and in all hydrodynamic flow conditions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding
publishing this article.
Acknowledgment
The authors are very thankful to the Editor-in-Chief and all
Reviewers for their insightful comments that helped to improve the
clarity of the final paper.
References
Abraham, A., 2001. Neuro-fuzzy systems: State-of-the-art modeling techniques. In:
International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 269–276.
Abraham, A., Nath, B., 2000. Designing optimal neuro-fuzzy architectures for intelligent
control. In 6th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics, and
Vision.
Akrami, S.A., El-Shafie, A., Jaafar, O., 2013. Improving rainfall forecasting efficiency
using modified adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (MANFIS). Water Resour.
Manage. 27 (9), 3507–3523.
Ali, S.Z., Dey, S., 2016. Hydrodynamics of sediment threshold. Phys. Fluids 28 (7),
075103.
Altunkaynak, A., 2010. A predictive model for well loss using fuzzy logic approach.
Hydrol. Process. 24 (17), 2400–2404.
Altunkaynak, A., 2013. Prediction of significant wave height using geno-multilayer per-
ceptron. Ocean Eng. 58, 144–153.
Altunkaynak, A., 2009. Sediment load prediction by genetic algorithms. Adv. Eng. Softw.
40 (9), 928–934.
Altunkaynak, A., 2008. Adaptive estimation of wave parameters by Geno-Kalman fil-
tering. Ocean Eng. 35 (11–12), 1245–1251.
Altunkaynak, A., Şen, Z., 2007. Fuzzy logic model of lake water level fluctuations in Lake
Van, Turkey. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 90 (3–4), 227–233.
Altunkaynak, A., Nigussie, T.A., 2015. Prediction of daily rainfall by a hybrid wavelet-
season-neuro technique. J. Hydrol. 529, 287–301.
Altunkaynak, A., Wang, K.H., 2012. Estimation of significant wave height in shallow lakes
using the expert system techniques. Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (3), 2549–2559.
Andrews, E.D., 1994. Marginal bed load transport in a gravel bed stream, Sagehen Creek,
California. Water Resourc. Res. 30 (7), 2241–2250.
Ashworth, P.J., Ferguson, R.I., 1989. Size-selective entrainment of bed load in gravel bed
streams. Water Resour. Res. 25 (4), 627–634.
Ashworth, P.J., Ferguson, R.I., Ashmore, P.E., Paola, C., Powell, D.M., Prestegaards, K.L.,
1992. Measurements in a braided river chute and lobe: 2. Sorting of bed load during
entrainment, transport, and deposition. Water Resour. Res. 28 (7), 1887–1896.
Azamathulla, H.M., Ghani, A.A., Fei, S.Y., 2012. ANFIS-based approach for predicting
sediment transport in clean sewer. Appl. Soft Comput. 12 (3), 1227–1230.
Azamathulla, H.M., Chang, C.K., Ghani, A.A., Ariffin, J., Zakaria, N.A., Hasan, Z.A., 2009.
An ANFIS-based approach for predicting the bed load for moderately sized rivers. J.
Hydro-environ. Res. 3 (1), 35–44.
Bizimana H., Demir F., Sönmez O., 2016. Modeling of water level changing of Yuvacik
dam with fuzzy logic. 4th Int.Sy. On innovative technologies in Engineering and
Science, 3-4 November 2016, Alanya, Turkey.
16
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
Banks, J., 1998. Principles. Handbook of simulation: principles, methodology, advances, ap-
plications, and practice. John Wiley & Sons, Atlanta, Georgia.
Bowden, J.H., Nolte, C.G., Otte, T.L., 2013. Simulating the impact of the large-scale
circulation on the 2-m temperature and precipitation climatology. Clim. Dyn. 40
(7–8), 1903–1920.
Brase H., C., Brase P., C., 2009. Concepts and Methods. Understandable Statistics, ninth
ed. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Buffington, J.M., 1999. The legend of AF Shields. J. Hydraul. Eng. 125 (4), 376–387.
Buffington, J.M., Montgomery, D.R., 1998. Correction to “A systematic analysis of eight
decades of incipient motion studies, with special reference to gravel-bedded rivers”.
Water Resour. Res. 34 (1), 157.
Buffington, J.M., Montgomery, D.R., 1997. A systematic analysis of eight decades of in-
cipient motion studies, with special reference to Gravel-bedded Rivers. Water Resour.
Res. 33 (8), 1993–2029.
Cao, Z., Pender, G., Meng, J., 2006. Explicit formulation of the Shields diagram for in-
cipient motion of sediment. J. Hydraul. Eng. 132 (10), 1097–1099.
Carson, M.A., Griffiths, G.A., 1985. Tractive stress and the onset of bed particle movement
in gravel stream channels: Different equations for different purposes. J. Hydrol. 79
(3–4), 375–388.
Chiu, S., 1996. Method and software for extracting fuzzy classification rules by sub-
tractive clustering. In: Proceedings of North American Fuzzy Information Processing.
IEEE, pp. 461–465.
Dey, S., Ali, S.Z., 2018. Advances in modeling of bed particle entrainment sheared by
turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids 30 (6), 061301.
Dey, S., Das, R., Gaudio, R., Bose, S.K., 2012. Turbulence in mobile-bed streams. Acta
Geophys. 60 (6), 1547–1588.
Donigian, A.S., Love, J.T., 2003. Sediment calibration procedures and guidelines for
watershed modeling. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2003(4),
728–747.
Ebtehaj, I., Bonakdari, H., 2014. Comparison of genetic algorithm and imperialist com-
petitive algorithms in predicting bed load transport in clean pipe. Water Sci. Technol.
70 (10), 1695–1701.
Ebtehaj, I., Bonakdari, H., Khoshbin, F., Bong, C.H.J., Ab Ghani, A., 2017. Development of
group method of data handling based on genetic algorithm to predict incipient mo-
tion in rigid rectangular storm water channel. Sci. Iran. Trans. A Civ. Eng. 24 (3),
1000.
Elhakeem, M., Papanicolaou, A.T., Tsakiris, A.G., 2017. A probabilistic model for sedi-
ment entrainment: The role of bed irregularity. Int. J. Sedim. Res. 32 (2), 137–148.
Fenton, J.D., Abbott, J.E., 1977. Initial movement of grains on a stream bed: The effect of
relative protrusion. Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 352 (1671), 523–537.
Gholami, A., Bonakdari, H., Ebtehaj, I., Akhtari, A.A., 2017. Design of an adaptive neuro-
fuzzy computing technique for predicting flow variables in a 90° sharp bend. J.
Hydroinform. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2017.200. jh2017200.
Giménez-curto, L.A., Corniero, M.A., 2009. Entrainment threshold of cohesionless sedi-
ment grains under steady flow of air and water. Sedimentology 56 (2), 493–509.
Gustafson, D.E., Kessel, W.C., 1979. Fuzzy clustering with a fuzzy covariance matrix. In:
1978 IEEE conference on decision and control including the 17th symposium on
adaptive processes. IEEE, pp. 761–766.
Hadi, S.J., Tombul, M., 2018. Monthly streamflow forecasting using continuous wavelet
and multi-gene genetic programming combination. J. Hydrol. 561, 674–687.
Hjulstrom, F., 1935. Studies of the morphological activity of rivers as illustrated by the
River Fyris, Bulletin. Geol. Inst. Upsalsa 25, 221–527.
Hutter, K., Wang, Y., 2016. Dimensional analysis, similitude and physical experiments at
laboratory scale. In: Fluid and Thermodynamics. Springer, Cham, pp. 537–607.
Inman, D.L., 1949. Sorting of sediments in the light of fluid mechanics. J. Sediment. Res.
19 (2), 51–70.
Jang, J.S., 1992. Neuro-Fuzzy Modeling: Architectures, Analyses, and Applications.
University of California, Berkeley.
Jang, J.S., 1993. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans. Syst.
Man Cybern. 23 (3), 665–685.
Jiang, Z., Haff, P.K., 1993. Multiparticle simulation methods applied to the micro-
mechanics of bed load transport. Water Resour. Res. 29 (2), 399–412.
Jovanovic, B.B., Reljin, I.S., Reljin, B.D., 2004. Modified ANFIS architecture-improving
efficiency of ANFIS technique. In: 7th Seminar on Neural Network Applications in
Electrical Engineering, 2004. NEUREL 2004. IEEE, pp. 215–220.
Kasabov, N., 1999. Evolving connectionist and fuzzy connectionist systems–theory and
applications for adaptive, on-line intelligent systems. Neuro-Fuzzy Techniques for
Intelligent Information Processing. Physica Verlag.
Kennard, R.W., Stone, L.A., 1969. Computer aided design of experiments. Technometrics
11 (1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1969.10490666.
Kitsikoudis, V., Sidiropoulos, E., Hrissanthou, V., 2015. Assessment of sediment transport
approaches for sand-bed rivers by means of machine learning. Hydrol. Sci. J. 60 (9),
1566–1586.
Kennedy A., A., 1995. The Albert Shields story. J. Hydraul. Eng. 121 (11), 766–772.
Kitsikoudis, V., Sidiropoulos, E., Hrissanthou, V., 2014. Machine learning utilization for
bed load transport in gravel-bed rivers. Water Resour. Manage. 28 (11), 3727–3743.
Kitsikoudis, V., Spiliotis, M., Hrissanthou, V., 2016. Fuzzy regression analysis for sedi-
ment incipient motion under turbulent flow conditions. Environ. Process. 3 (3),
663–679.
Komar, P.D., Clemens, K.E., 1986. The relationship between a grain's settling velocity and
threshold of motion under unidirectional currents. J. Sediment. Res. 56 (2), 258–266.
Kramer, H., 1935. Sand mixtures and sand movement in fluvial model. Trans. Am. Soc.
Civil Eng. 100 (1), 798–838.
Lajiness, M., Watson, I., 2008. Dissimilarity-based approaches to compound acquisition.
Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12 (3), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.03.
010.
H. Bizimana and A. Altunkaynak
Maguire, L.P., Roche, B., McGinnity, T.M., McDaid, L.J., 1998. Predicting a chaotic time
series using a fuzzy neural network. Inf. Sci. 112 (1–4), 125–136.
Miller, M.C., McCave, I.N., Komar, P., 1977. Threshold of sediment motion under uni-
directional currents. Sedimentology 24 (4), 507–527.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., Veith, T.L.,
2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in wa-
tershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 50 (3), 885–900.
Moosavi, V., Vafakhah, M., Shirmohammadi, B., Behnia, N., 2013. A wavelet-ANFIS hy-
brid model for groundwater level forecasting for different prediction periods. Water
Resour. Manage. 27 (5), 1301–1321.
Najafzadeh, M., Tafarojnoruz, A., Lim, S.Y., 2017. Prediction of local scour depth
downstream of sluice gates using data-driven models. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 23 (2),
195–202.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part
I—A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10 (3), 282–290.
Nasr, A., Bruen, M., 2008. Development of neuro-fuzzy models to account for temporal
and spatial variations in a lumped rainfall–runoff model. J. Hydrol. 349 (3–4),
277–290.
Neill, C.R., Yalin, M.S., 1969. Quantitative definition of beginning of bed movement. J.
Hydraul. Div. 95 (1), 585–588.
Özger, M., 2009. Comparison of fuzzy inference systems for streamflow prediction.
Hydrol. Sci. J. 54 (2), 261–273.
Ouyang, H.T., 2017. Optimization of autoregressive, exogenous inputs-based typhoon
inundation forecasting models using a multi-objective genetic algorithm. Eng. Optim.
49 (7), 1211–1225.
Paphitis, D., 2001. Sediment movement under unidirectional flows: an assessment of
empirical threshold curves. Coast. Eng. 43 (3–4), 227–245.
Pandis, N., 2015. Statistical inference with confidence intervals. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac.
Orthop. 147 (5), 632–634.
Petty D., M., 2012. Calculating and using confidence intervals for model validation. In: In
Proceedings of the Fall 2012 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, pp. 10–14.
Pianosi, F., Wagener, T., 2015. A simple and efficient method for global sensitivity ana-
lysis based on cumulative distribution functions. Environ. Model. Softw. 67, 1–11.
Remesan, R., Shamim, M.A., Han, D., Mathew, J., 2009. Runoff prediction using an in-
tegrated hybrid-modelling scheme. J. Hydrol. 372 (1–4), 48–60.
Schiereck, G.J., 2017. Introduction to Bed, Bank and Shore Protection. CRC Press.
Şen, Z., Altunkaynak, A., 2006. A comparative fuzzy logic approach to runoff coefficient
and runoff estimation. Hydrol. Process. Int. J. 20 (9), 1993–2009.
Shields, A., 1936. Anwendung der Ahnlichkeistmechanik und der turbulenzforschung auf
die geschiebebewegung, Mitteilungen der Preuss. Versuchsanst. f. Wasserbau u.
Schiffhau, Berlin, Heft 26. (In German).
Shvidchenko, A.B., Pender, G., 2000. Flume study of the effect of relative depth on the
incipient motion of coarse uniform sediments. Water Resour. Res. 36 (2), 619–628.
Sonmez, O., Bizimana, H., 2018. Flood hazard risk evaluation using fuzzy logic and
weightage based combination methods in Geographic Information System (GIS). Sci.
Iran.
Solomatine, D.P., Shrestha, D.L., 2009. A novel method to estimate model uncertainty
17
Journal of Hydrology 577 (2019) 123952
using machine-learning techniques. Water Resour. Res. 45 (12).
Spiliotis, M., Kitsikoudis, V., Kirca, V.O., Hrissanthou, V., 2018. Fuzzy threshold for the
initiation of sediment motion. Appl. Soft Comput. 72, 312–320.
Sugeno, M., 1985. An introductory survey of fuzzy control. Inf. Sci. 36 (1–2), 59–83.
Sugeno, M., Kang, G.T., 1988. Structure identification of fuzzy model. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 28
(1), 15–33.
Sundborg, Å., 1956. The river Klarälven a study of fluvial processes. Geogr. Ann. 38 (2–3),
125–316.
Sutherland, A.J., 1967. Proposed mechanism for sediment entrainment by turbulent
flows. J. Geophys. Res. 72 (24), 6183–6194.
Tagaki, T., Sugeno, M., 1985. Fuzzy identification of systems and its application to
modelling and control. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man and Cybernetics 15 (1), 116–132.
Tamburrino, A., Carrillo, D., Negrete, F., Ihle, C.F., 2016. Critical shear stress for incipient
motion of non-cohesive particles in open-channel flows of pseudoplastic fluids. Can.
J. Chem. Eng. 94 (6), 1084–1091.
Tano, S.I., Oyama, T., Arnould, T., 1996. Deep combination of fuzzy inference and neural
network in fuzzy inference software—FINEST. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 82 (2), 151–160.
Tütmez, B., Dağ, A., Tercan, A.E., Kaymak, U., 2007. Lignite thickness estimation via
adaptive fuzzy-neural network. Mining Congress Turkey 151.
Turowski, J.M., Badoux, A., Rickenmann, D., 2011. Start and end of bedload transport in
gravel-bed streams. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 (4).
Uyumaz, A., Altunkaynak, A., Özger, M., 2006. Fuzzy logic model for equilibrium scour
downstream of a dam's vertical gate. J. Hydraul. Eng. 132 (10), 1069–1075.
Vanoni, V.A., 2006. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering No. 54, Sedimentation
Engineering. ASCE, Virginia, USA.
Vollmer, S., Kleinhans, M.G., 2007. Predicting incipient motion, including the effect of
turbulent pressure fluctuations in the bed. Water Resour. Res. 43 (5).
Wang, K.H., Altunkaynak, A., 2011. Comparative case study of rainfall-runoff modeling
between SWMM and fuzzy logic approach. J. Hydrol. Eng. 17 (2), 283–291.
Wan Mohtar, W.H.M., Afan, H., El-Shafie, A., Bong, C.H.J., Ab Ghani, A., 2018. Influence
of bed deposit in the prediction of incipient sediment motion in sewers using artificial
neural networks. Urban Water J. 15 (4), 296–302.
Wathen, S.J., Ferguson, R.I., Hoey, T.B., Werritty, A., 1995. Unequal mobility of gravel
and sand in weakly bimodal river sediments. Water Resour. Res. 31 (8), 2087–2096.
Wilcock, P.R., 1988. Methods for estimating the critical shear stress of individual fractions
in mixed-size sediment. Water Resour. Res. 24 (7), 1127–1135.
Yalin, M.S., 1977. Mechanics of Sediment Transport, second ed. Pergamon Press.
Yalin, M.S., Da Silva, A.M.F., 2001. Fluvial processes. IAHR monograph. International
Association for Hydraulic Research, Delft.
Yalin, M.S., Karahan, E., 1979. Inception of sediment transport. J. Hydraul. Div. 105 (11),
1433–1443.
Ying, H., 1999. Analytical analysis and feedback linearization tracking control of the
general Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy dynamic systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber. Part C
(Applications and Reviews) 29 (2), 290–298.
Zounemat-Kermani, M., Meymand, A.M., Ahmadipour, M., 2018. Estimating incipient
motion velocity of bed sediments using different data-driven methods. Appl. Soft
Comput. 69, 165–176.