See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330522279

Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by using

Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · January 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-019-1946-5

CITATIONS READS

2 144

2 authors:

Muqdad Aljuboori Bithin Datta

James Cook University James Cook University
10 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    179 PUBLICATIONS   3,716 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coastal groundwater management View project

Groundwater Monitoring Network Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muqdad Aljuboori on 12 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-13 Hydraulic Engineering
Copyright ⓒ2018 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by

Using Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach
Muqdad Al-Juboori* and Bithin Datta**
Received December 12, 2017/Revised 1st: May 20, 2018, 2nd: July 30, 2018/Accepted August 1, 2018/Published Online

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

A linked Simulation-Optimization (S-O) model was developed to find the optimum design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure
(HWRS) constructed on permeable soils. The nonlinear relationship between seepage design variables can accurately and solely
simulated by numerical methods. To increase the computational efficiency of the S-O model, the seepage numerical model was
replaced by approximation simulator based on the Support Vector Machine (SVM) surrogate models. The surrogate models
incorporated and highlighted the effects of hydraulic conductivity (k) and anisotropy ratio (ky/kx) on the optimum design of HWRS.
The results revealed that reducing k and (ky/kx) values augments the optimum cost. The most effective seepage controller variables
were the depth and inclination angle of the last cut-off. Increasing these variables effectively reduced the exit gradient value to the
allowable limits. Also, the first and second last aprons (b9, b10) were important to provide a sufficient cross section for HWRS to
increase the stability of the HWRS against the overturning, flotation, sliding, etc. The evaluation of S-O technique demonstrated a
good agreement between the predicted and simulated seepage characteristics of the optimum HWRS design. Hence, the S-O
methodology is applicable to obtain an optimal and minimum cost HWRS design.
Keywords: simulation-optimization technique, support vector machine, genetic algorithm, water retaining structures, numerical
seepage analysis, hydraulic conductivity, anisotropy ratio
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction a homogenous and isotropic system (Freeze, 1975; Lambe and

Seepage characteristics associated with Hydraulic Water Retaining
Structures (HWRS), such as dams, weirs and regulators, are
influenced by the foundation soil properties such as the hydraulic
conductivity. In addition to the direct hydrostatic and dynamic
water pressure effects, the variation of seepage characteristics
(the uplift pressure and exit gradient) plays a significant role in
the hydraulic design of HWRS. This study evaluates the effects
of the permeability (hydraulic conductivity) on the optimum
hydraulic design of HWRS. The evaluation was carried out by
utilizing a computationally efficient linked simulation-optimization
(S-O) technique.
Most of the previous theories, methods and closed form
seepage solutions (Bligh, 1915; Das, 2013; Harr, 2012; Khosla et
al., 1936; Lane, 1935), which were applied to analyze seepage
under HWRS, did not incorporate the effects of hydraulic
conductivity on the seepage characteristics. Also, these methods
are only applicable for general soil properties and simple seepage
flow conditions. However, in the real life soil properties vary
with different locations and directions, and are rarely observed in
Whitman, 2008). The seepage characteristics, especially the exit
gradient, are affected by soil properties (Al-Juboori and Datta,
2018a). Hence, the effect of different values of hydraulic conductivity
and its anisotropy must be considered in the optimum design of
HWRS.
The precise values for the uplift pressure and exit gradient for
anisotropic and different hydraulic conductivities could be
determined by using numerical methods. Numerical seepage
analysis based on Finite Element Method (FEM) provides accurate
solutions compared to analytical solutions and experimental
observations (Shahrbanozadeh et al., 2015). In the last few decades
and through the development of the high speed processors, many
numerical simulation codes based on FEM were utilized to solve
and simulate a complex engineering problem such as those
related to seepage under hydraulic structures (Alsenousi and
Mohamed, 2008; Azizi et al., 2012; Lefebvre et al., 1981;
Mansuri et al., 2014; Moharrami et al., 2014; Shahrbanozadeh et
al., 2015). The Geo-Studio/SEEPW (Krahn, 2012) software
based on FEM has been developed to simulate complex scenarios
for various soil properties and different boundary conditions. In

*Ph.D., Student at College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville QLD 4811, Australia; Scholarship Holder Nominated by Col-
lege of Engineering, Wasit University, Wasit, Iraq, Phone (E-mail: muqdad.aljuboori@my.jcu.edu.au)
**Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Civil Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville QLD 4811, Australia (Corre-
sponding Author, E-mail: bithin.datta@jcu.edu.au)

−1−
 Muqdad Al-Juboori and Bithin Datta
this study, this software was utilized for numerical seepage
modelling. For surrogate models training purpose, this numerical
model was solved with random input data sets. These generated
data sets (input-output) are utilized to train the surrogate models as
an approximate simulator of the numerical simulation model.
However, in addition to the seepage analysis accuracy, the
economy of the design is a critical aspect in big construction
projects. The efficiency of the construction cost for HWRS must
be integrated as a crucial factor in HWRS design because
constructing such projects needs significant amounts of construction
material and engineering efforts. Moreover, the design safety
factors of hydraulic structures are extremely conservative because
any failure of HWRS leads to catastrophic events. Therefore, the
cost efficiency and the safety of HWRS design must be
incorporated simultaneously with the accurate seepage analysis.
Accordingly, the linked Simulation-Optimization (S-O) technique
was adopted to incorporate accurate numerical seepage responses
considering the variation of hydraulic conductivity (kx) and
anisotropy ratio (ky/kx) in the optimization model with the
minimum cost objective function. In many research studies and
engineering applications such as engineering problems related to
groundwater and seepage, the linked S-O technique has been
efficiently utilized to find the optimum solution based on the
numerical simulation responses (Al-Juboori and Datta, 2017;
Datta et al., 2011; Jha and Datta, 2011; Shourian et al., 2008;
Singh and Datta, 2006; Sreekanth and Datta, 2011; Sreekanth
and Datta, 2015). The majority of these studies concluded that
the S-O technique could be efficiently applied to solve different
engineering problems, based on the incorporation of accurate
numerical responses.
The linked S-O methodology integrates the numerical seepage
simulation model within the optimization algorithm, to determine
seepage characteristics. The evolutionary optimization algorithms
based on direct search technique, assesses the fitness function
and constraints continuously based on the numerical model
responses. The optimization algorithm calls the numerical model
numerous times to evaluate the fitness value and constraints for a
large number of randomly generated candidate solutions. As a
result, direct linking the optimization model to the numerical
simulation model is a time consuming and computationally
demanding task, even with a high speed processor unit. The
running time of direct linked S-O system to obtain optimal
solutions may be as long as weeks or even months (Dhar and
Datta, 2009). Alternatively, the numerical model could be replaced
by a trained surrogate model, which provides expeditious and
precise responses for the S-O model. A high accuracy surrogate
model, based on regression machine learning techniques, could be
trained and tested using many data sets simulated by a numerical
model. The surrogate model can provide accurate prediction of
seepage characteristics within the S-O model, even for an unseen
or out of training data sets.
In this study, the Support Vector Machine (SVM) was used to
build surrogate models. The SVM is considered a powerful
machine learning technique, which is used in classification,
−2−
function approximation and prediction tasks (Alpaydin, 2014).
By utilizing the SVM, nonlinear and complex engineering
problems can be efficiently modelled. Moreover, the SVM has
an ability to overcome noisy data in the training phase by
integrating the most controllable support vectors (training data).
Also, the SVM has the ability to overcome the over-training
phenomena. Lately, the SVM have been widely utilized in many
civil engineering researches (Deka, 2014; Fisher et al., 2017;
Mahani et al., 2015; Parsaie et al., 2015; Ranković et al., 2014;
Su et al., 2016). In all these researches, the SVM models were
developed to imitate specific responses for a particular engineering
problem or numerical model to enhance the understanding of the
input variables’ effects on the predicted responses. However, the
SVM surrogate models have been rarely linked with the
optimization model in the civil engineering discipline. Furthermore,
reported studies incorporating other regression machine learning
techniques in optimizing design of water retaining structure
founded on permeable soils have been limited (Al-Juboori and
Datta, 2017; Al-Suhaili and Karim, 2014). Some aspects of the
development of the optimum design model of HWRS using the
linked S-O optimization approach based on SVM technique
were presented by Al-Juboori and Datta (2018a) disregarding the
effects of the soil conductivity variation.
This study focuses on studying the effect of the hydraulic
conductivity kx (for isotropic soil), and anisotropy ratio ky/kx on
the optimum design of HWRS using linked S-O technique. A
constrained optimization model was developed based the
Genetic Algorithm (GA). The GA utilized the SVM surrogate
models’ responses to evaluate the objective function and the
constraints to select the optimum decision variables' values. The
SVM models were trained and tested using a large number of the
numerically simulated data sets. Additionally, the optimum
solutions obtained by the S-O model were evaluated by comparing
the seepage characteristics predicted by the S-O model with the
numerical solution results obtained by processing the optimal
design variables as the input data set for the numerical seepage
modelling. The significance of this study is represented by
efficiently implementing the linked S-O methodology to incorporate
the numerical seepage responses and effects of hydraulic
conductivity on the optimum design of HWRS.
The next section emphasises on the seepage conceptual model,
the SVM technique based the developed surrogate models and
the formulation of the linked S-O model. Section three discusses
the results, and then section four includes the main conclusions.
2. Material and Methods
2.1 Conceptual Seepage Model and Training Data Gener-
ation
The most important advantages of using numerical modeling
for a complex engineering problem are the accuracy, cost and
time efficiency. To extensively study and optimize all possible
design scenarios based optimum solutions related to seepage
characteristics of HWRS, a comprehensive conceptual model
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by Using Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach

Fig. 1. Proposed Conceptual Model

was built, as shown in Fig. 1. The variables of comprehensive Table 1. Description of the Generated Data
model were processed through the optimization model to find the Input variable Unite Min Max Average Std.
most important design variables that provide a safe, economic 1 b , b , …. b
1 2 11 m 1 120 60.37 34.26
and optimum design. The attributes of the conceptual model 2 d , d , …. d
1 2 10 m 0 60 29.98 17.37
comprised ten sheet piles (cut-offs) S1, S2,…, S10 with varied 3 β ,β ,…β
1 2 10 degree 30 150 90.4 34.11
positions, lengths and orientations. Additionally, three subsoil 4 DL m 15 300 161.01 27.01
layers were assumed based on different values of hydraulic 5 k x m /day
3
0.01 20 10.04 5.78
conductivity, where k and ky/kx are varied for each layer for each 6 (k /k )
y x - 0.1 1.5 0.80 0.40
case. As a result, the contribution of each design variable in the
conceptual model to attain a safe and optimal design could be
explored by solving the optimization model based on the pressure in front (PE) and behind (PC) each single sheet pile, in
surrogate model responses. The surrogate models were trained addition to exit gradient (ie) at the end of the floor of the
based on the numerically simulated data sets. The direct linking of hydraulic structure (toe). All the input data sets (input variable)
a numerical model with an optimization model is a complex and and the related output data set (seepage characteristic) were
difficult task requiring enormous computation time. Therefore, utilized to train the surrogate models.
the surrogate model could be linked to the optimization solver
instead of the direct linking of the numerical model, while a 2.2 The Support Vector Machine and Developing the Sur-
highly acceptable accuracy and computational efficiency must rogate Models
be achieved for the developed surrogate models. The SVM is one of the most popular machine learning techniques,
Building a surrogate model includes randomly generating and recently has been implemented for different engineering
numerous different input data sets based on conceptual model problems. The SVM is a regression and classification technique
design variables, and solving each set by the numerical model to that provides generalized responses, and is less affected by the
obtain the output data sets. For each generated scenario, the input overfitting phenomena (Alpaydin, 2014). Lately, the SVM has
design variables, the hydraulic conductivity value and anisotropic been efficiently applied to many hydraulic and civil engineering
ratio are different from others scenarios. Input and output researches (Deka, 2014; Fisher et al., 2017; Mahani et al., 2015;
variables for each scenario represent one input data set. The input Parsaie et al., 2015; Ranković et al., 2014; Su et al., 2016).
variables of the numerical model are: the total upstream water Concisely, the SVM algorithm selects from the training data
head (H), the ten sheet pile depths (d1, d2,… d10), their inclination sets an efficient hyperplane, by which a good separation could be
angles (β1, β2,… β10), the width between the sheet piles (b1, b2,…. achieved. As long as the boundary (the margin) of the hyperplane is
b10), the three subsoil layers depths (LD1, LD2, LD3) and their far from the center of the hyperplane, a good prediction ability of
hydraulic conductivity in the horizontal direction (kx1, kx2, kx2) the SVM model could be attained (see Fig. 2). The multi-
with their anisotropy ratio (ky/kx)1, (ky/kx)2, (ky/kx)3, as shown in objective optimization task of the SVM algorithm concentrates
Fig. 1 and Table 1. Latin Hypercube Sampling method (LHS) on defining the best data sets that provide an efficient classification,
(Cox and Reid, 2000) was used to randomly generate data for the and maximizing the margin widths of the hyperplane. Therefore,
specified range. The input data and their corresponding simulated the SVM is less constrained by the training data, and the
responses (the output data) were utilized to train and build the prediction ability for unseen data set is robust (Alpaydin, 2014;
SVM models. The output data for each case was obtained by Kramer, 2016).
simulating and solving each input scenario using Geo-Studio/ A normal vector W = (w, .., wd)T∈ Rd and a point x0 on the
SEEPW code (Krahn, 2012). The most important seepage hyperplane could be used to describe the hyperplane A as:
d T
characteristics for each numerical seepage model are the uplift A = { x ∈ R :w x + w0 = 0 } . Then, assuming there is two classes

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −3−

 Muqdad Al-Juboori and Bithin Datta

separating hyperplane that one which has the maximum margin

1 1 2 1 2
m = ------- + ------- = ------- or the minimum norm --- w ; therefore, the
w w w 2
optimization task could be formulated as shown in Eqs. (4a) and
(4b):
1
Minimize: --- w 2 we need to put this equation as (4a)
2

Subject to: rt ( WT xt + w0 ) ≥ +1, ∀t (4b)

This optimization problem could be solved by finding W and
w0 to define the optimal hyperplane having an efficient margin m
and the decision boundary, which called support vectors
(Alpaydin, 2014; Kramer, 2016). This optimization task could be
solved by using Lagrange multipliers as shown in Eq. (5).
1 T N N N
Fig. 2. Linear Separation Support Vector (two classes) T1 t t t t t t
Ld = – --- ( w w ) – w --- ∑ α r x – w0 ∑ α r + ∑ α (5)
2 2t = 1 t=1 t=1

+1/−1 and the sample X = {xt, rt}(Azizi et al., 2012), where rt = In this study, the SVM models were set up by utilizing the
+1 if x ∈ C1 and rt = −1 if xt ∈ C2 , as shown in Eqs. (1) and. (2): MATLAB programming language. 1500 input and output data
T t t sets were utilized to train and test the SVM surrogate models.
( W x + w0 ) ≥ +1 for r = +1 (1)
Twenty one models were trained to predict PEi and PCi for each
T t t sheet pile and ie near the toe of the HWRS model. For each SVM
( W x + w0 ) ≤ – 1 for r = –1 (2)
surrogate model, 90% of the source data sets was randomly
The Eq. (1) and (2) could be written as in Eq. (3): selected for training, and 10% was kept for testing. The efficiency of
t T t the developed SVM models was measured by calculating the
r ( W x + w0 ) ≥ +1 (3)
coefficient of determination (RSQ) and Mean Square Error
So, according to the Eq. (3), the instances must not be located (MSE) for both training and testing data sets. The MSE provides
on the hyperplane ( ≥ +0 ) only, but also must be at a distance a general idea on the robustness of the model prediction, and a
( ≥ +1 ) a way to provide better separation. Then the best value of MSE less than 10% is considered satisfactory. The RSQ

Table 2. Characteristics of the Developed SVM Models

Model RSQ TRAIN MSE TRAIN RSQ TEST MSE TEST Function ORDER Input variables
Exit gradient 0.95 0.1 0.91 0.17 polynomial 4 x x x x x x x x x x x AB
8 9 10 11 19 20 21 22 30 31 32
*

PC10 0.97 1.22 0.97 1.08 polynomial 4 x x x AB 11 21 32

PE10 0.96 4.57 0.97 3.64 polynomial 3 x AB 10

PC9 0.95 7.66 0.95 6.35 polynomial 3 x x AB 20 31

PE9 0.99 1.32 0.99 0.96 polynomial 3 x AB 9

PC8 0.98 3.74 0.98 2.93 polynomial 4 x x AB 19 30

PE8 0.99 0.82 0.99 0.97 polynomial 3 x AB 8

PC7 0.99 2.12 0.99 1.59 polynomial 3 x x AB 18 29

PE7 0.98 5.25 0.99 0.77 polynomial 2 x AB 7

PC6 0.99 1.74 0.99 1.46 polynomial 4 x x AB 17 28

PE6 0.99 1.08 0.99 0.65 polynomial 3 x x AB 6 22

PC5 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.13 polynomial 3 x x AB 16 27

PE5 0.99 0.63 0.99 0.54 polynomial 2 x AB 5

PC4 0.99 1.21 0.99 1.2 polynomial 3 x x AB 15 26

PE4 0.99 0.77 0.99 0.74 polynomial 2 x AB 4

PC3 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.94 polynomial 3 x x AB 14 25

PE3 0.99 0.94 0.99 0.93 polynomial 3 x AB 3

PC2 0.99 1.92 0.99 1.94 polynomial 4 x x AB 13 24

PE2 0.99 1.11 0.99 1.13 polynomial 3 x AB 2

PC1 0.99 2.75 0.99 3.2 polynomial 3 x x AB 12 23

PE1 0.99 3.2 0.99 2.8 polynomial 2 x AB 1

Note: AB equals to [DL , DL , DL , k , (k /k ) , k , (k /k ) , k , (k /k ) , H]

1 2 3 x1 y x 1 x2 y x 2 x3 y x 3

−4− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by Using Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach

represents the degree to which the variability in the given data is many engineering design problems, and economic applications
interpreted by the prediction data. Mathematically, RSQ is (Al-Juboori and Datta, 2017; Al-Juboori and Datta, 2018a;
represented by the ratio of the Model Sum Square (MSS) to the Bornschlegell et al., 2012; Cojocaru et al., 2013; Datta et al.,
actual or Total Sum Square (TSS) (Gail et al., 2007). The MSE 2011; Hassan, 2017; Housh et al., 2012; Innal et al., 2015; Islam
and RSQ could be determined using Eq. (6) to Eq. (9). et al., 2015; Rajper and Amin, 2012; Singh, 2010; Singh, 2011).
n 2 The GA may need to call the developed surrogate models’ and
∑ i = 1( ŷi – yi )
MSE = ------------------------------- (6) use the responses a huge number of times to evaluate the constraint
n
values and the fitness function. Furthermore, surrogate models’
responses vary each time with the new candidate solution presented
∑ difference of predicted value to by the optimization solver. Hence, the optimization model is
MSS 2 the mean
RSQ = R = ----------- = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (7) considered a complex task. Therefore, the GA is appropriate to
TSS
∑ difference of actural value to solve such complex design optimization problem. MATLAB
the mean programing language was used to solve this optimization problem.
n
The utilized GA parameters were: Population Size 2000, Crossover
2
MSS = ∑ ( ŷi – y ) (8) Fraction 0.8, Elite Count 10, Objective Function Tolerance 1e-6,
i=1 Constraint Tolerance1e-3, and the rest of the GA parameters were
n same as the default MATLAB options.
2
TSS = ∑ ( yi – y ) (9) The decision vector (X) in the optimization model referred to
i=1 the same design variables mentioned in the conceptual model
Where ŷ is the predicted value, y refers to the mean of the and was integrated in the training of SVM models. These variables
target (actual) data and y is the target data. The SVM training include the sheet piles’ depths, locations and inclination angles.
parameters, such as kernel function and constraint box, etc., of The decision vector is listed as shown below and the optimization
each SVM model were prudently selected after several iterations problem is formulated as:
of trial and error to attain the best RSQ value, and to minimize
the MSE value. We found that the kernel function extensively ⎧ b1 ⎫
⎪b ⎪
influences the performance of SVM model, and the polynomial ⎪ 2⎪
kernel provided the best prediction. Furthermore, polynomial ⎪  ⎪
⎪ ⎪
kernel was the most suitable one comparable with the Gaussian, ⎪ b11 ⎪
⎧ x 1 ⎫⎪ ⎪
Radial Basis Function (RBF) and linear kernel. The attributes ⎪ ⎪⎪ b 1 ⎪
and the input variables in addition to the error measures (RSQ, ⎪ x 2 ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪⎪ b 2 ⎪
MSE) of training and testing phases for each SVM surrogate Find X = ⎨  ⎬⎨ ⎬
model are listed in Table 2. The design variables from x1 to x11 ⎪ ⎪⎪  ⎪
⎪  ⎪⎪ d ⎪
represent the width between sheet piles (b1, b2…b11), variables ⎪ x ⎪⎪ 10 ⎪
from x12 to x22 represent the depth of the sheet piles (d1, d2,…d10), ⎩ 32 ⎭⎪ β ⎪
⎪ 1⎪
and the variables from x23 to x32 represent the inclination angle ⎪ β2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
for the cut-offs (β1, β2,…β10). These design variables were ⎪  ⎪
processed in a similar layout for the optimization model to ⎪ ⎪
⎩ β10 ⎭
identify the decision variable.
Which minimizes the cost objective function shown in Eq.
2.3 Optimization Model (10)
A constrained optimization model was formulated as a part of 11 21
S-O model to determine the optimum design of HWRS. The f ( X ) = cf ∑ Ti x i + c c tc ∑ x i (10)
safety factors and other hydraulic design requirements represented x=1 x = 12

the imposed constraints of the optimization model. The best Where Ti represents the average thickness of the floor between
value of each design/decision variable is selected by the two sheet piles(ti, ti+1), cf = The construction cost of the floor per
optimization algorithm to provide a safe and economic design. cubic meter ($500/m3), cc = The construction cost of the sheet
The optimization solver utilized in this study was the Genetic pile per cubic meter ($1000/m3), tc = the thickness of the sheet
Algorithm (GA) based on the direct search and natural selection pile, which is constant = 0.5 m.
principles. The GA is considered a computationally expensive The decision vector (X) is subjected to the following constraints:
optimization algorithm because it is based on a large number of Binding (surrogate models) constraints: the values PCi and
evaluations to the fitness value and constraints based on a big PEi for each sheet pile, and the ie value involved in the S-O model,
number of randomly generated individuals for many sequential were determined based on the surrogate models’ responses.
generations (Gen and Cheng, 2000; Haupt and Haupt, 2004). Consequently, each candidate solution (X) was processed by the
The GA have been efficiently applied to solve and optimize surrogate models to determine the seepage characteristic values.

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −5−

 Muqdad Al-Juboori and Bithin Datta
Fig. 3. Flow Chart for the Linked Simulation-Optimization Method-
ology
As a result, the surrogate models within the optimization model
could be considered as the binding constraints, where the
decision vector must satisfy the surrogate model constraints in
addition to others design and logical constraints. As shown in
Eq. (11) and Fig. 3, the PCi, PEi and ie values are interrelated
with the objective function and other constraint.
( PCi, PEi, ie ) = f ( X ), i = 1, 2, …, 10 (11)
The exit gradient (ie) constraint: The most critical design
variable directly affecting the safety of the HWRS is the exit
gradient value. Physically, the exit gradient value represents the
drop in the hydraulic gradient for the last square of the stream-
equipotential flow-net divided by the length of this square (ie =
ΔH/L). Typically, the ie value is compared with the critical
gradient (ic) value to ensure a safe exit gradient for the HWRS.
γ
sub
The critical gradient could be determined by ic = ------- , where: γsub
γw
is the submerged soil density, and γw is the weight density of
water. Normally, the ic value is around 1, in this study it was
assumed as 1.15. If the value of ie is equal or more than ic, the
piping failure might happen. Consequently, the ie value must be
at least (3-5) times less than ic (Harr, 2012; Khosla et al., 1936).
The safety factor of the exit gradient was determined using Eq.
(12). The numerical seepage modelling solution for ie value was
determined near the toe of the HWRS, at which the shortest
streamline and largest exit gradient value could be seen.
i
F.S = ---c ≥ 5 (12)
ie
The flotation constraint: The uplift pressure on the foundation of
HWRS produced by seeping water must be counterbalanced by a
sufficient cross section, and weight of HWRS. Therefore, the
values of PCi and PEi located near each sheet pile were balanced
by the weight of the floor thickness (ti) at that location. Therefore, a
feasible GA solution must sufficiently increase the thickness of
the floor to increase the HWRS floor weight, until a safe situation is
achieved. Therefore, the thickness of the HWRS design must
satisfy the imposed constraints shown in Eq. (13), as recommended
−6−
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987) and Bligh (1915).
PEi or PCi
ti ≥ 1.3 ⎛ ---------------------------⎞ , i = 1, 2, …, 10 (13)
⎝ Gc – 1 ⎠
Where; Gc is the specific gravity of the concrete, i refers to the
sequences of the sheet piles under the hydraulic structure.
Overturning safety factors: The HWRS must resist the
overturning forces. These forces are resulted from the external
load, such as the horizontal component of the hydrostatic
upstream water head. Besides, the vertical effects of the uplift
pressure on the HWRS foundation must to be incorporated in
overturning safety factor. Lj (2014) recommended that the safety
factor for overturning should be not less than 1.5 and could be
expressed by Eq. (14)
Mpas
Fsoverturning = ---------
- ≥ 1.5 (14)
Mact
Where: Mpas refers to the summation of all passive moments,
which enhance the stability of HWRS against the overturning
forces. All the moments were determined at the toe of the
HWRS. The Mpas mainly encompassed the moments resulted
from the weight of the cross sections of HWRS between any
consecutive sheet piles. In contrast, the Mact represents the active
moments which weaken the stability of HWRS. The uplift
pressures for each point under HWRS and the upstream hydrostatic
head (horizontal component) are the main forces developing the
Mact moments. Interestingly, each value of Mpas or Mact were
varied with the new candidate decision vector, and their values
were directly based on the SVM surrogate models’ responses.
Furthermore, these responses were used to determine the
thickness of the cross sections and the distribution of the uplift
pressure along the width of HWRS.
Sliding safety factors: The sliding safety factor for HWRS
must be more than 1.5 (Lj, 2014). In addition to the external load
effects, the internal resistance friction factor (f) and cohesion
factor (C) for the soil were incorporated in the expression of the
sliding safety factor of HWRS as demonstrated in Eq. (15).
TVL × f × C × B
Fssliding = ----------------------------------- ≥ 1.5 (15)
THL
Where; f = tanø = 0.7 and ø = internal friction angle, C = 20,
TVL = the resultant of vertical load (abstraction the uplift forces
from the total weight of HWRS), B = Total width of HWRS and
THL = total horizontal load.
Eccentric load condition: Garg (1987) recommended that the
resultant force location(e), which is obtained by Eq. (16), must be
within the middle third of the total width. This constraint
corroborates a full compression zone condition under HWRS and
prevents non-uniform load distribution on the soil foundation. This
situation might lead to a differential settlement and HWRS failure.
Mpas – Mact
e = ------------------------
-, 2B ⁄ 3 ≥ e ≥ B ⁄ 3 (16)
TVL
Other constraints: Many other design requirements of HWRS
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by Using Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach

were also integrated in the optimization model. Additionally, the
logical constraints were also included to prevent the optimization
algorithm from returning unrealistic, negative values or illogical
solutions.
3. Results and Discussion
The constrained optimization model based on the GA algorithm
was formulated, and successfully linked to the surrogate models.
The S-O model was implemented with different values of kx and
ky/kx ratio of the first soil layer. The first layer is the nearest layer
to the foundation of HWRS (Fig. 1), and has a significant influence
on seepage characteristics. The effect of (ky/kx)1 was studied by
assuming ten different values ranging from 0.1 to 1.4. Besides,
seventeen different values of kx1 ranging from 0.01 m/ day to 10
m/day were proposed and processed through S-O technique. The
value of the other design variables and parameters were left
constant; for example, k and ky/kx of the second and third layers
were 5 m/day and 1 respectively. The upstream head, i.e. H,
value was 50 m and the depth of the three layers equaled to 50 m.
The rest of the variables were considered the decision variables
(X) to be obtained by the optimization solver as an optimum
solution for each implemented case.
Generally, the results revealed that the increase of the (kx)1 and
(ky/kx)1 ratio significantly decreased the total cost of the HWRS,
as shown in Fig. 4. The reason is that, when kx1 increases with
the constant anisotropy ratio ((ky/kx)1 = 1), the seeping water can
move relatively easily from the high pressure zone (upstream) to the
low pressure zone (downstream). Consequently, the pore-water
pressure underneath HWRS and the exit gradient values decrease.
Similarly, when the anisotropy ratio (ky/kx)1 is large with a specified
hydraulic conductivity (kx1 = 5), the seeping water motion in the
vertical direction becomes faster and the exit gradient value
becomes smaller compared to the exit gradient value obtained
for the small values of (ky/kx)1 ratio. Hence, for high values of
(kx)1 and (ky/kx)1, the optimum length d10 and the total width (B),
which are the most effective variables, decreased; consequently the
optimal cost declined. The low anisotropy ratios (0.1 to 0.6)
drastically increased the construction cost, as shown in Fig. 4.
The reason is that the optimum B for the HWRS and d10 values
were relatively larger to counterbalance the effect of the high
uplift pressure, and to yield the exit gradient value to the safe

Fig. 4. Minimum Cost HWRS Optimum Design: (a) for Different Values (k ) , (b) for Different Values (k /k )
x 1 y x 1

Fig. 4. Minimum Cost HWRS Optimum Design: (a) for Different Values (k ) , (b) for Different Values (k /k )
x 1 y x 1

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −7−

 Muqdad Al-Juboori and Bithin Datta

Table 3. Safety Factors for the Implemented Cases for Different (k ) x 1 Table 4. Safety Factors for the Implemented Cases for Different
Exit Eccentric (k /k )1 y x

Kx1 Sliding Overturning

gradient distance (m) Exit Eccentric
(K /K ) Sliding Overturning
0.01 0.22 43.58 1.84 3.45
y x 1
gradient distance (m)
0.05 0.23 45.14 1.89 3.33 0.1 0.23 121.64 2.14 6.53
0.1 0.23 44.11 1.85 3.43 0.2 0.23 119.20 2.14 6.43
0.2 0.23 43.39 1.83 3.45 0.3 0.23 78.63 2.08 4.94
0.3 0.23 45.13 1.89 3.34 0.4 0.22 81.11 2.08 4.95
0.4 0.22 43.71 1.84 3.48 0.6 0.23 47.53 1.98 3.24
0.5 0.23 55.15 1.98 3.69 0.8 0.23 33.48 1.85 2.49
0.6 0.15 43.90 1.86 3.32 1 0.16 30.90 1.79 2.58
0.7 0.23 44.46 1.87 3.37 1.2 0.23 30.28 1.80 2.34
0.8 0.23 42.45 1.86 3.25 1.4 0.23 27.46 1.74 2.31
0.9 0.23 43.62 1.86 3.35
1 0.22 43.56 1.85 3.38
2 0.23 43.98 1.89 3.30
The S-O results demonstrated that the contribution of b1 to b8
4 0.23 32.04 1.82 2.49
and d1 to d9 to the safety of HWRS was insignificant, as the
6 0.23 31.64 1.80 2.66 optimum value of those variables, shown in Figs. 6 and 7,
8 0.22 26.53 1.74 2.04 approached zero. Additionally, since the values of d1 to d9
10 0.21 22.53 1.68 1.90 approached to zero, the associated inclination angle for each
sheet pile (β1, β2,…β9) was inconsiderable. However, the
optimum solutions of HWRS were based on increasing the value
allowable value (0.23). Also, for the same reasons, there was a of b9, and b10 to counterbalance the uplift pressure values, and
high optimum construction cost of low kx1 values ranging based on augmenting the d10 and β10 to decrease the exit gradient
between 0.01 and 0.8 m/day value. This could be explained by the following reasons, the exit
The optimum design of HWRS for the implemented cases gradient value is the most critical safety factor for the obtained
satisfied all safety factors and design requirements. The exit optimum solutions because the optimum values were close to the
gradient safety factor and safe eccentric distance (Fig. 5), permissible maximum design values specified, as shown in
especially for the small values of (ky/kx) and (kx)1, played a more Tables 3 and 4. Additionally, the optimization solver particularly
crucial role in the optimum solution, compared to the other increased the d10 and β10 values, because these variables are more
safety factors. This is evident, as these safety factors reached the effective at reducing the exit gradient value. Also, increasing
maximum or minimum allowable limit to satisfy the design these value, particularly provides an effective and the minimum
requirements while the optimum design attaining the minimum cost alternative. The augmentations of these values lengthened
construction cost. Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate the safety factor the seeping water stream line; consequently the exit gradient
variations with different values of (ky/kx)1 and (kx)1,respectively. value decreased. Hence, the optimum value of β10 equalled 150
However, with augmentation of (ky/kx)1 and (kx)1, the exit gradient degrees, which was the maximum specified bound for this
and eccentric distance became less controllable. Consequently, variable. Simultaneously, the optimum width of HWRS required
the sliding and overturning safety factor approached the minimum to satisfy the overturning and the sliding safety factors was
allowable limits and became more controllable with the increase provided by b9 and b10. Furthermore, the sufficient width was
of (ky/kx)1 and (kx)1 values. also necessary to prevent the eccentric load condition of the

Fig. 6. Optimum Values for Distances between Sheet Piles (b to b ) of HWRS: (a) for Different Values (k ) , (b) for Different Values (k /k )
1 11 x 1 y x 1

−8− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by Using Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach
Fig. 7. Optimum Values for Sheet Piles Depths (d to d ) of HWRS: (a) for Different Values (k ) , (b) for Different Values (k /k )
1 10
HWRS. Besides, the uplift pressure on the downstream side
decreased with the total width augmentation, resulting in reduction
of the exit gradient value. Therefore, the values of b9 and b10
mainly provide an efficient cross section and weight to resist the
external loads and uplift pressure, and partially reduce the uplift
pressure and exit gradient value.
Finally, the robustness of the developed methodology could be
assessed by measuring the deviation of the predicted seepage
characteristics via S-O model to the numerical seepage modelling
solutions. For all implemented cases, the predicted seepage
characteristics (PEi, PCi, exit gradient) for a certain optimum
solution were compared to the numerical solution of the same
optimum solution. The evaluations demonstrated that the developed
surrogate models based on the SVM technique provided accurate
predictions of seepage characteristics within S-O model for the
optimum solutions located within the training range. However,
the prediction accuracy of the surrogate models was slightly less
for few extreme optimum solutions (out of the training rages). In
general, the percentages of the error of the predicted seepage
characteristics compared to the numerical seepage simulation
solutions were less than −\+10%. The Mean Absolute Error
(MAE) of the predicted uplift pressure under the HWRS at
specified locations for different values of (ky/kx)1 and (kx)1 is
presented in the Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Also, the MEA for
exit gradient value was (0.0272) of the implemented cases with
different values of (kx)1, and was (0.0386) of the implemented
cases with the diffident values of (ky/kx)1. However, there were
some noticeable deviations in the predicted exit gradient values
Table 5. Mean Absolute Error for the Predicted Uplift Pressure at
the Specified Locations of HWRS for Different (k /k )1
(k /k )
y x0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8
1 1 1.2 1.4 1.5
MAE(m) 0.74 5.85 5.37 2.03 2.28 2.25 1.71 0.62 0.80 2.27
Table 6. Mean Absolute Error for the Predicted Uplift Pressure at the Specified Locations of HWRS for Different (k )1
Kx 1 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
MAE(m) 5.39 5.18 5.39 5.22 5.33 4.44
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
x 1 y x 1
compared to the numerical solutions, which might be attributed
to the imprecise learning of the exit gradient surrogate model
with many input variables (Table 2). Mainly, the performance of
utilized surrogate models within S-O model was totally within
acceptable ranges and the exit gradient safety factor for these
cases were within the safe limits. Also, the evaluation process
showed that the utilized SVM machine learning technique could
build accurate and efficient surrogate model for complex
problems, while including many design variables. Some of the
evaluation results are represented by the bar charts shown in
Figs. 8 and 9 including five (±2.5%) percentage error.
4. Conclusions
The main conclusion of this study was that the hydraulic
conductivity and-/or anisotropy ratio related to the seepage flow
domain have significant impacts on the optimum design of
HWRS. These effects have rarely been considered in the optimum
design of HWRS because of the complexity of incorporating the
hydraulic conductivity variation in the seepage analysis and the
related hydraulic design of HWRS. Furthermore, directly linking
the numerical model to the direct search algorithms such as GA
is a computationally expensive and time consuming task. The
linked S-O methodology was efficient in identifying the optimum
solutions for minimum cost design of HWRS for different
combination of the hydraulic conductivity values and the anisotropy
ratio. This was achieved by linking the adequately-trained SVM
surrogate models to the evolutionary optimization solver (GA).
The functions and parameters the SVM and GA were carefully
selected after many trial and error iterations to provide the best
results.
y x
In general, the optimum solution consisted of the required
total width of the HWRS floor (b9, b10) to provide a sufficient
cross section for resistance to the external hydrostatic and uplift
x
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 2 4 6 8 10
4.89 3.07 4.66 4.47 3.86 3.70 2.43 2.18 1.14 3.38 2.61
−9−
 Muqdad Al-Juboori and Bithin Datta

Fig. 8. Evaluation Results for Optimum Solution Seepage Characteristics: (a) Uplift Pressure (k /k ) = 0.1, (b) Uplift Pressure (k /k ) =
y x 1 y x 1

0.6, (c) Uplift Pressure (k /k ) = 1, (d) Uplift Pressure (k /k ) = 1.2, (e) Uplift Pressure (k /k ) = 1.4, (f) Exit Gradient
y x 1 y x 1 y x 1

pressures, and to partially decrease the uplift pressure and exit
gradient impacts. Also, an efficient depth of the last sheet pile
(d10) with inclination angle (β10) up to150 degrees were indispensable
to provide a safe exit gradient. All HWRS safety factors and
design requirements were satisfied as verified by numerical
simulation. For small (ky/kx)1 and (kx)1 value, the most critical
safety factors were the exit gradient safety factor and preventing
non-uniform (eccentric) load condition on the foundation of
HWRS.
The S-O results showed that the decrease of (kx)1 or (ky/kx)1
augmented the optimal construction cost. This may be due to the
fact that the seepage characteristics for low values of (kx)1 or (ky/
kx)1 are larger and more critical than those obtained for large
values of the (kx)1 or (ky/kx). Consequently, the optimization
solver increased d10 and (b9, b10) to provide a safe exit gradient
and to satisfy other design requirements at the minimum cost of
HWRS design (Fig. 7, Fig. 6).
The evaluation results proved that the SVM surrogate models
based on polynomial kernel function presented a robust prediction
of the seepage characteristics for the HWRS design. This was
also true when the optimum solutions were out of or, close to the
training data ranges. Hence, the linked S-O was accurate and
computationally efficient to determine the minimum construction
cost optimum design, satisfying all the hydraulic design

− 10 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by Using Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach

Fig. 9. Evaluation Results for Optimum Solution Seepage Characteristics: (a) Uplift Pressure (k ) = 0.1, (b) Uplift Pressure (k ) = 0.4, (c)
x 1 x 1

Uplift Pressure (k ) = 0.8, (d) Uplift Pressure (k ) = 1, (e) Uplift Pressure (k ) = 6, (f) Exit Gradient
x 1 x 1 x 1

requirements and constraints. Therefore the proposed methodology
is potentially applicable for optimal design of the HWRS,
incorporating different scenarios of hydraulic conductivity of the
underlying soil.
For futures studies, it is recommended to utilized different
machine learning techniques that can provide more accurate
responses compared with SVM models’ predictions. Also, the
effects of the soil properties that maximize the safety of the
HWRS instead of only minimizing the construction cost might
be valuable to consider for the future research.
Biography
Muqdad Al-Juboori is currently a Ph.D student enrolled in his
Ph.D. degree in 2015 at Civil and Environmental Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University,
Townsville, QLD, Australia. In 2011, he accomplished his M.Sc.
degree, Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering,
Kufa University, Najaf, Iraq. In 2004, he completed his B.Sc.
degree, Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering,
Kufa University, Najaf, Iraq.
Dr. Bithin Datta graduated with a B.Tech. (Hons.) and then
Masters degrees in Civil Engineering from IIT Kharagpur in
India. Obtained his Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Purdue
University, U.S.A. He worked in different positions at a number
of reputed Universities in U.S.A, including University of
California, Davis, University of Washington, Seattle. He then
joined the Civil Engineering Department at IIT Kanpur in India,
and served in the position of Professor and Senior Professor. He
also held the position of Professor and Head of Civil Engineering,
and Head of the Environmental Engineering and Management

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 − 11 −

 Muqdad Al-Juboori and Bithin Datta
Program. He also served as Visiting Professor at Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Canada, Denmark Technical University,
Copenhagen, and Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. He
has guided many Master’s and Ph.D. theses. He has contributed
many peer-reviewed articles in reputed international Journals, Book
Chapters, and numerous Conference papers. He is also internationally
well known for his research work on Optimal Identification of
Unknown Pollution Sources in Groundwater Systems, design of
optimal monitoring networks incorporating uncertainties,
management of coastal aquifers for saltwater intrusion management,
and real-time operation of reservoir systems.
References
Al-Juboori, M. and Datta, B. (2017). “Artificial neural networn modeling
and genetic algorithm based optimization of hydraulic design related
to seepage under concrete gravity dams on permeable soils.”
International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction
and Architectural Engineering, World Academy of Science, Engineering
and Technology, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 64-70, DOI: 10.1999/1307-
6892/10006237.
Al-Juboori, M. and Datta, B. (2018a). “Linked simulation-optimization
model for optimum hydraulic design of water retaining structures
constructed on permeable soils.” International Journal of GEOMATE,
GEOMATE International Society, Vol. 14, No. 44, pp. 39-46, DOI:
10.21660/2018.44.7229.
Al-Juboori, M. and Datta, B. (2018b). “Performance evaluation of a
genetic algorithm-based linked simulation-optimization model for
optimal hydraulic seepage-related design of concrete gravity dams.”
Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research, Taylor &
Francis, pp. 1-25, DOI: 10.1080/23249676.2018.1497558.
Al-Suhaili, R. H. and Karim, R. A. (2014). “Optimal dimensions of
small hydraulic structure cutoffs using coupled genetic algorithm
and ANN model.” Journal of Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 1-19,
Retrieved from https://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=83193
Alpaydin, E. (2014). Introduction to machine learning, MIT press,
London, England.
Alsenousi , K. F. and Mohamed, H. G. (2008). “Effects of inclined
cutoffs and soil foundation characteristics on seepage beneath hydraulic
structures.” Twelfth International Water Technology Conference,
IWTC12, Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 1597-1617.
Azizi, S., Salmasi, F., Abbaspour, A., and Arvanaghi, H. (2012). “Weep
hole and cut-off effect in decreasing of uplift pressure, case study:
Yusefkand Mahabad Diversion Dam.” Journal Civil Engineering
Urban, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 97-101, Retrieved from http://www. ojceu.ir/
main/attachments/article/17/JCEU,%20B19,%20102-107,%202012.pdf.
Bligh, W. G. (1915). Dams and weirs: An analytical and practical treatise
on gravity dams and weirs; arch and buttress dams; submerged
weirs; and barrages, American Technical Society, Chicago, United
States.
Bornschlegell, A., Pelle, J., Harmand, S., Bekrar, A., Chaabane, S., and
Trentesaux, D. (2012). “Thermal optimization of a single inlet T-
junction.” International Journal of Thermal Sciences, Vol. 53, pp. 108-
118, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2011.09.016.
Cojocaru, C., Duca, G., and Gonta, M. (2013). “Chemical kinetic model
for methylurea nitrosation reaction: Computer-aided solutions to
inverse and direct problems.” Chemical Engineering Journal,
Vol. 217, pp. 385-397, DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.130.
− 12 −
Cox, D. R. and Reid, N. (2000). The theory of the design of experiments,
Chapman and Hall/CRC New York.
Das, B. M. (2013). Advanced soil mechanics, Taylor & Francis,CRC
Press, New York, USA.
Datta, B., Chakrabarty, D., and Dhar, A. (2011). “Identification of
unknown groundwater pollution sources using classical optimization
with linked simulation.” Journal of Hydro-Environment Research,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 25-36, DOI: 10.1016/j.jher.2010.08.004.
Dhar, A. and Datta, B. (2009). “Saltwater intrusion management of
coastal aquifers. I: Linked simulation-optimization.” Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp. 1263-1272, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000097.
Fisher, W. D., Camp, T. K., and Krzhizhanovskaya, V. V. (2017).
“Anomaly detection in earth dam and levee passive seismic data
using support vector machines and automatic feature selection.”
Journal of Computational Science, Elsevier, Vol. 20, pp. 143-153,
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocs.2016.11.016.
Freeze, R. A. (1975). “A stochastic-conceptual analysis of one-dimensional
groundwater flow in nonuniform homogeneous media.” Water
Resources Research, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 725-741, DOI: 10.1029/
WR011i005p00725.
Gail, M., Krickeberg, K., Samet, J., Tsiatis, A., and Wong, W. (2007).
Statistics for biology and health, Springer, London.
Garg, S. K. (1987). Irrigation engineering and hydraulic structures,
Khanna publishers, Nai Sarak Delhi, India.
Gen, M. and Cheng, R. (2000). Genetic algorithms and engineering
optimization, Vol. 7, John Wiley & Sons, USA.
Harr, M. E. (2012). Groundwater and seepage, McGraw Hill, New
York.
Hassan, W. H. (2017). “Application of a genetic algorithm for the
optimization of a cutoff wall under hydraulic structures.” Journal of
Applied Water Engineering and Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp. 22-30, DOI: 10.1080/23249676.2015.1105161.
Haupt, R. L. and Haupt, S. E. (2004). Practical genetic algorithms, John
Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA.
Housh, M., Ostfeld, A., and Shamir, U. (2012). “Box-constrained
optimization methodology and its application for a water supply
system model.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
Vol. 138, No. 6, pp. 651-659, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-
5452.0000229.
Innal, F., Dutuit, Y., and Chebila, M. (2015). “Safety and operational
integrity evaluation and design optimization of safety instrumented
systems.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 134, pp. 32-
50, DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2014.10.001
Islam, M., Buijk, A., Rais-Rohani, M., and Motoyama, K. (2015). “Process
parameter optimization of lap joint fillet weld based on FEM–RSM–
GA integration technique.” Advances in Engineering Software,
Vol. 79, pp. 127-136, DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2014.09.007.
Jha, M. K. and Datta, B. (2011). “Simulated annealing based simulation-
optimization approach for identification of unknown contaminant
sources in groundwater aquifers.” Desalination and Water Treatment,
Vol. 32, Nos. 1-3, pp. 79-85, DOI: 10.5004/dwt.2011.2681.
Khosla, A. N., Bose, N. K., and Taylor, E. M. (1936). Design of weirs on
permeable foundations, Central Board of Irrigation, New Delhi.
Krahn, J. (2012). Seepage modeling with SEEP/W: An engineering
methodology, GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
Kramer, O. (2016). Machine Learning in Evolution Strategies, (Vol. 20),
Springer, Switzerland.
Lambe, T. W. and Whitman, R. V. (2008). Soil mechanics, John Wiley
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Minimum Cost Design of Hydraulic Water Retaining Structure by Using Coupled Simulation Optimization Approach
& Sons, New York.
Lane, E. W. (1935). “Security from under-seepage-masonry dams on
earth foundations.” Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 1235-1272,
Lefebvre, G., Lupien, C., Pare, J. J., and Tournier, J.-P. (1981).
“Effectiveness of seepage control elements for embankments on
semipervious foundations.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp. 572-576, DOI: 10.1139/t81-067.
Lj, T. (2014). Dams and appurtenant hydraulic structures, Taylor &
Francis, CRC Press, London.
Mahani, A. S., Shojaee, S., Salajegheh, E., and Khatibinia, M. (2015).
“Hybridizing two-stage meta-heuristic optimization model with
weighted least squares support vector machine for optimal shape of
double-arch dams.” Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 27, pp. 205-218,
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.11.014.
Mansuri, B., Salmasi, F., and Oghati, B. (2014). “Effect of location and
angle of cutoff wall on uplift pressure in diversion dam.” Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 1165-1173, DOI:
10.1007/s10706-014-9774-3.
Moharrami, A., Moradi, G., Bonab, M. H., Katebi, J., and Moharrami, G.
(2014). “Performance of cutoff walls under hydraulic structures
against uplift pressure and piping phenomenon.” Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, Springer, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 95-103, DOI:
10.1007/s10706-014-9827-7.
Parsaie, A., Yonesi, H. A., and Najafian, S. (2015). “Predictive modeling of
discharge in compound open channel by support vector machine
technique.” Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, Vol. 1,
Nos. 1-2, pp. 1-6, DOI: 10.1007/s40808-015-0002-9.
Raghavendra, N, S. and Deka, P. C. (2014). “Support vector machine
applications in the field of hydrology: A review.” Applied Soft
Computing, Vol. 19, pp. 372-386, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.02.002.
Rajper, S. and Amin, I. J. (2012). “Optimization of wind turbine
micrositing: A comparative study.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 5485-5492, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.
06.014.
Ranković, V., Grujović, N., Divac, D., and Milivojević, N. (2014).
“Development of support vector regression identification model for
prediction of dam structural behaviour.” Structural Safety, Vol. 48,
pp. 33-39.
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
View publication stats
Shahrbanozadeh, M., Barani, G.-A., and Shojaee, S. (2015). “Simulation
of flow through dam foundation by isogeometric method.” Engineering
Science and Technology, an International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp. 185-193, DOI: 10.1016/j.jestch.2014.11.001.
Shourian, M., Mousavi, S. J., Menhaj, M., and Jabbari, E. (2008).
“Neural-network-based simulation-optimization model for water
allocation planning at basin scale.” Journal of Hydroinformatics,
Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 331-343, Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/a240/4e13feea26ebf0a7821b90745643366a7c95.pdf.
Singh, R. M. (2010). “Design of barrages with genetic algorithm based
embedded simulation optimization approach.” Water Resources
Management, Springer, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 409-429, DOI: 10.1007/
s11269-010-9706-9.
Singh, R. M. (2011). “Genetic algorithm based optimal design of hydraulic
structures with uncertainty characterization.” Swarm, Evolutionary, and
Memetic Computing (pp. 742-749). Springer Berlin, Heidelberg.
Singh, R. M. and Datta, B. (2006). “Identification of groundwater pollution
sources using GA-based linked simulation optimization model.”
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 101-
109, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:2(101).
Sreekanth, J. and Datta, B. (2011). “Coupled simulation-optimization
model for coastal aquifer management using genetic programming-
based ensemble surrogate models and multiple-realization optimization.”
Water Resources Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, DOI: 10.1029/
2010WR009683.
Sreekanth, J. and Datta, B. (2015). “Review: Simulation-optimization
models for the management and monitoring of coastal aquifers.”
Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1155-1166, DOI:
10.1007/s10040-015-1272-z.
Su, H., Chen, Z., and Wen, Z. (2016). “Performance improvement method
of support vector machine-based model monitoring dam safety.”
Structural Control and Health Monitoring, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 252-
266, DOI: 10.1002/stc.1767.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1987). Engineering and design flotation
stability criteria for concrete hydraulic structures. Report, Technical
Letter, No. 1110-2-307, Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington, Retrieved from: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/
tr/fulltext/u2/a403467.pdf.
− 13 −