International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Sediment Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijsrc

Original Research

Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence techniques in

prediction of the removal efficiency of vortex tube silt ejector
Sanjeev Kumar a, *, Chandra Shekhar Prasad Ojha a, Nand Kumar Tiwari b,
Subodh Ranjan b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 247667, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, 136119, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A vortex tube silt ejector is a curative hydraulic structure used to remove sediment deposits from canals
Received 19 June 2022 and is recognized as one of the most efficient substitutes for physically removing canal sediment. The
Received in revised form spatially varied flow in the channel and the rotational flow behavior in the tube make the silt removal
20 February 2023
process complex. It is even harder to accurately predict the silt removal efficiency by traditional models
Accepted 27 March 2023
accurately. However, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning approaches have emerged as robust
Available online 31 March 2023
substitutes for studying complex processes. Therefore, this research makes use of AI approaches; support
vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), random tree (RT), and multivariate adaptive regression spline
Keywords:
Vortex tube silt ejector
(MARS) to compute the vortex tube silt ejection efficiency using the laboratory data sets. The outcomes of
Support vector machine the artificial intelligence (AI)-based techniques also were compared with traditional models. It was found
Random forest that the RT model (root mean square error, RMSE ¼ 2.165, Nash Sutcliffe efficiency, NSE ¼ 0.98) out-
Random tree performs the other applied approaches which had relatively more significant result errors. The sensitivity
Multivariate adaptive regression spline analysis of the process depicts the extraction ratio as the key parameter in the computation of vortex
tube silt ejector removal efficiency. The findings of the AI-based approaches discussed in the current
study might be helpful for hydraulic engineers as well as researchers in the assessment of the removal
efficiency of vortex tube silt ejectors.
© 2023 International Research and Training Centre on Erosion and Sedimentation/the World Association
for Sedimentation and Erosion Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today, field engineers are confronting critical problems of
sedimentation in irrigation and power canals with increasing silt in
the channels. The removal of the silt material from the irrigation
channels or hydroelectric-based plants was mainly done by using
desilting devices; otherwise, the transport capacity of the irrigation
channel will eventually decrease with time (Sarwar et al., 2013). In
the case of a hydroelectric-based plant, turbine runner blades get
damaged due to the effects of sharp-edged silts present in the water
(Ranga & Kothyari, 2004). Consequently, the intended design pur-
pose gets defeated, and power generation is affected.
Preventive desilting devices include a silt excluder (Garde &
Pande, 1976; Kothyari et al., 1994) placed in front of the canal
intake in the riverbed that bars the entry of silt material into the
withdrawal channel. However, despite how effective the silt
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: skumar20@ce.iitr.ac.in (S. Kumar).
excluder is, the silt excluder is effective; a fair amount of silt ma-
terial is likely to enter the withdrawal channel. So curative struc-
tures, which are utilized in the channel to control the sediment,
include the tunnel type (Dhillon et al., 1977; IS: 6004, 1980; Singh
et al., 2016), traditional settling basins (Dongre, 2002; Garde
et al., 1990; Raju et al., 1999; Saxena, 1996; Schrimpf, 1990; Singh,
1987; Singh et al., 2008; Srivastava, 1997; Sujudi, 1987), and the
vortex type settling chambers (Athar et al., 2002, 2003; Curi et al.,
1979; Mashauri, 1986).
There is no consensus on which excluder is economical as a
sizeable amount of water gets lost and is unsuitable for use in a
region where an acute water problem is occurring. The traditional
settling basins suffer from multiple drawbacks: It needs relatively
large space, a long residence time, and frequent interruption during
physical cleaning. However, vortex-settling chambers are free from
the difficulties described for detention basins. Still, these kinds of
ejectors have some limitations: The first limitation is their complex
design and structure; secondly, they can remove only a limited
amount of sediment. Nevertheless, vortex settling chambers have

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2023.03.001
1001-6279/© 2023 International Research and Training Centre on Erosion and Sedimentation/the World Association for Sedimentation and Erosion Research. Published by
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
616 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627
Fig. 1. Definition sketch showing the hydraulic principle of operation of the vortex tube silt ejector.
the edge over other available alternate structures. They are modest,
efficient, and do not undergo the shortcomings that other alter-
native desilting devices suffer. A vortex tube silt ejector can be
utilized to eject bed and suspended load sediment in regions
experiencing a water crisis. There is an acute water supply issue
with a minimal water loss of around 5%e10% for an escape flushing
discharge (Orak & Asareh, 2015). Further, the vortex tube silt
ejector size is minimal and easy to install compared with other
desilting devices when treating an equal amount of sediment-laden
water. Thus, the construction cost, including the installation cost of
the vortex tube silt ejector, is merely a minor part of the price
required to build other desilting devices to extract the equivalent
amount of sediment. So, in many cases, a vortex tube silt ejector is a
cost-effective and water-saving substitute compared with the other
desilting devices (Atkinson, 1994a, 1994b).
A vortex tube silt ejector is a simple device to eject bed load,
mainly from irrigation channels. It comprises a slotted conduit,
closed at one side, with a longitudinal opening along with the
crown. The tube is embedded in the channel bed so that the plane
of the slotted opening is flush with the surface of the channel bed.
As flow passes over the conduit opening, a rotational or spiral
motion is set up within the duct. Material passing along the canal
bed is drawn or dropped into the conduit and carried to the outlet
at which it is discharged through an escape return channel. The
removal efficiency of the vortex tube silt ejector is expressed as
the ratio between extracted silt material and the total silt material
that is carried by the canal. While the extraction ratio is defined as
the relation between the flow flushed out by the vortex tube silt
ejector and the total flow rate of the canal. A vortex tube silt
ejector is more economical due to its smaller size and lower
installation cost than other desilting devices and can be contin-
uously utilized without a break, unlike traditional settling basins.
The primary hydraulic principle of operation of the vortex tube
silt ejector by which bed and suspended load are removed is
based on utilizing vortex force and silt gravity load as depicted in
Fig. 1. A general view of the vortex tube silt ejector is shown in
Fig. 2.
The vortex tube silt ejector should be placed in the canal at a
point downstream from the canal head regulator where an equi-
librium sediment concentration profile in the vertical direction is
fully established (Russell, 1991). High silt removal efficiency has
been observed in the case of the vortex tube silt ejector when the
bedload concentration is high, and the suspended load is low.
However, better efficiency has also been reported even when the
suspended load is relatively more than the bed load. Parshall
(1952) was the first to use the vortex tube silt ejector structure
and is considered to be its inventor. The vortex tube silt ejector has
been principally examined by Ahmed (1958), Atkinson (1994a,
1994b), Blench (1952), Lawrence and Sanmuganathan (1981),
Mahmood (1975), and Robinson (1962), and many more, but all
these studies for extracting sediment involve the conventional
aspects of stable channel theory, mechanics of sediment transport,
hydraulic principles and past experience with existing hydraulic
structures which leave room for arbitrariness. A comprehensive
study has been done on the development of the vortex tube silt
ejector. Lots of model experiments were done considering several
alterations in the structure of the vortex tube silt ejector in the
past. Still, vortex tube silt ejectors have been used for installation
in isolation, and no generic model for removal efficiency has been
developed. Moreover, the mechanism of flow involved in the
vortex tube silt ejector is cumbersome and intricate; therefore, it
becomes hard to find a traditional regression design to estimate
the removal efficiency correctly. Therefore, the potential of artifi-
cial intelligence (AI)-based techniques to predict the removal ef-
ficiency of desilting devices has been explored. The prediction
efficiency of AI and multiple linear regression (MLR) approaches
was determined using the Nash Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE),
coefficient of correlation (CC), and root means square error (RMSE).
Very few researchers have applied AI-based methods in this field.
However, in other similar areas, AI approaches have been widely
used for the last few decades in hydraulics, water resources pro-
jects, and other engineering disciplines (Sharafati et al., 2018;
Tiwari et al., 2020, 2020b). The focus of the current study is to
evaluate the efficacy of the formulated relation for sediment
removal efficiency concerning the hydraulic conditions and alter-
ations in vortex tube ejectors and to compare this functional
relation with AI-based modeling methods (random tree, random
forest, support vector machine, multivariate adaptive regression
spline) as well as conventional models proposed by previous re-
searchers. Furthermore, the sensitivity of vortex tube parameters is
Fig. 2. Illustration of a general view of the vortex tube silt ejector (Atkinson, 1994a).
 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627
analyzed to check each parameter's influence on the sediment
removal efficiency estimation.
2. AI-based methods
Four AI-based techniques were utilized for the computation of
silt removal efficiency of the vortex tube silt ejector, which is dis-
cussed in the following subsections.
2.1. Support vector machine (SVM)
The SVM model is an extensively used statistical machine
learning-based algorithm technique introduced by Vapnik (1998)
that works on the principle of basic risk minimization. An SVM is
described on the basis of an N-dimensional hyperplane used for
classification purposes that optimally converts the data into two
groups. The SVM model designs are associated with neural grid
methods. Furthermore, sigmoid kernel functions are used in the
SVM model, similar to the two-layer perceptron neural network
€lkopf, 2004).
(Han et al., 2012; Sihag et al., 2018; Smola & Scho
2.2. Detail of the kernel function of the SVM for estimating removal
efficiency
In the current study, SVM was utilized for modeling the corre-
lation between inputs and outputs. Moreover, SVM comprises
many kernel functions, so the choice of suitable kernel functions
among these functions also is a concern of the investigation. Hence,
for general purposes, two common kernel functions are used.
a) Radial basis kernel, RBF ¼ egðkxi xj k Þ
2
b) Pearson VII function kernel, PUK ¼

 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 u
 
1= 1 þ 2 xi  xj  2ð1=uÞ  1 =s
 
where xi xj  is known as the Euclidean distance (Han et al., 2012)
and g, s, u, and Ck (regularization parameter) are kernel parameters
(Sihag et al., 2018; Smola & Scho € lkopf, 2004). The performance
potential of the SVM model mainly depends on the proper setting
of kernel parameters: g, s, u, and Ck . The choices of g, u, and Ck
control the predicted (regression) model complexity.
2.3. Random forests (RF)
A RF approach refers to a well-organized collection of tree
predictors generated from input vectors using random vector
samples. At each node, various variables are arranged to form a
tree with arbitrarily selected input parameters. A training data
set is constructed from randomly selected parameters for estab-
lishing specific trees, and a Gini index is used to quantify the
parameters' impurity compared to the output (Breiman et al.,
1984). RF regression necessarily involves the use of two pre-
defined user variables: an input parameter (m) to be used at a
separate node to produce a tree and the number of trees grown
(k) (Breiman, 1999). The method is based on the hit-and-trial
method, with the variables chosen based on the best split. The
RF method constructs random forests by capturing a group of
random trees (Erdal & Karahanog lu, 2016). It creates different
separate classification trees from random data samples (i.e.,
bagging) and then votes to choose the most popular class
(Breiman, 2001). The base classifier in a RF is decision trees, and
the RF model is a hybrid of the bagging technique and the
random subspace method.
617
The RF approach can handle missing values as well as contin-
uous, categorical, and binary data, making it ideal for high-
dimensional data modeling. The RF approach has a number of ad-
vantages, including excellent accuracy in predicting results, inter-
pretability, and non-parametricity for a variety of datasets. Because
of the use of collective techniques and random sampling, accurate
forecasts and improved generalizations are achieved. When
compared to a single-tree classifier, the RF approach typically
provides a significant performance boost. The strategy to find the
inconsistency of the data is totally different in this method, which is
quite different from the usual functions (Ali et al., 2012; Sattari
et al., 2018; Shabani et al., 2020).
2.4. Random tree (RT)
A RT is an arborescence that is devised using a stochastic pro-
cess. A RT is a tree chosen at random from a number of probable
trees with random-k characteristics at each node (point). In this
case, ‘random’ is used to describe that each tree in the set of trees
has an equal opportunity to be selected in the sample. In other
words, there is uniformity in the distribution of trees. Random trees
can be grown effectively. Precise models can be obtained by
combining large sets of random trees. In the last few decades,
machine learning techniques have led to the extensive develop-
ment of random tree designs. Additionally, this method also in-
cludes the option of assessing the probability for each class (or
target mean in the case of regression) using a hold-out set (Erdal &
Karahanog lu, 2016).
2.5. Multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS)
There are two types of soft computing models: general para-
metric models and local nonparametric models (Zha & Chan, 2005).
A general parametric model utilizes all data, whereas a local
nonparametric model utilizes only a portion of the data (Elith et al.,
2008; Samui, 2013). MARS is one of the local nonparametric models
(Friedman, 1991) that fits regional polynomials to each subset, and
the complex patterns are modeled by this process. This distin-
guishes the MARS technique from other nonlinear models (Zha &
Chan, 2005). The model starts with a fixed term, and then adds
basis functions (BFs) to it. The MARS technique picks the BFs that
reduce the sum of squared errors the most (SSE). Overfitting the
data is a common side effect of progressive progress. A second
stage, involving a backward move, is required to alleviate the issue
of overfitting. The BFs with the smallest influence on the modeling
process are eliminated. Generalized cross-validation (GCV) is used
to calculate these BFs. Friedman (1991) and Safari (2020) defined
the MARS model as Eq. (1):
XM 
b
y ¼ a0 þ a BF X (1)
n¼1 m m
where M is the number of basis functions; a0 is a constant; and am
is the coefficient of the mth BF, BFm (X), which is calculated as
Eq. (2) (Friedman, 1991):
 Q h  iq
BFm X ¼ Ki¼1
m
Si;m Xvði;mÞ  ti;m (2)
þ
where Km is the degree of interaction between features in B Fm (X); i
is the number of the independent input variable; Si;m ¼ ± 1; Xvði;mÞ is
the vth independent variable; ti;m is the location of the node for
each of the input variables; and q is the power of basis functions.
The index of (þ) in Eq. (2) means taking the positive part of the
expression of ½Si;m ðXvði;mÞ  ti;m Þqþ (Samui, 2013):
618 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627

(h  iq h  i
h  iq Si;m Xvði;mÞ  ti;m if Si;m Xvði;mÞ  ti;m > 0
Si;m Xvði;mÞ  ti;m ¼ (3)
þ
0 otherwise

The GCV, based on which the best MARS model is selected, can to find the optimum parameters of the models. Table 1 lists the
be written as Eq. (4) (Yilmaz et al., 2018; Zabihi et al., 2016): primary parameters for the SVM, RF, RT, and MARS models.
 P
1
nt
nt
i¼1
ðyi  b f ðXi ÞÞ2
3. Published relations and conventional models
GCVðMÞ ¼
 2 (4)
C x ðMf Þ
1 nt Many factors influence a vortex tube silt ejector's removal effi-
ciency. Classical models are available in the literature, with designs
where nt is the total number of observations; b f ðXi Þ is the estimated based on either stable channel theory, sediment transport theory,
value; yi is the actual value; and C x ðMf Þ is the complexity penalty or physical model study, which leads to uneconomical device
function, whose value can be calculated as Eq. (5): design or device failure. Thus, in the current study, the performance
  potential of the classical models is assessed utilizing training
C x Mf ¼ dc  Mf þ Cx Mf (5) and testing data sets. The results of these classical models are
compared with those of AI-based models, including SVM, RF, RT,
and MARS.
where dc is the cost for each BF (Friedman, 1991); Cx ðMf Þ is the
For the classical models derived by prior researchers, the current
number of independent BFs, and Mf is the number of nodes
study evaluates the potential of the popular classical models, and
selected in the forward procedure. The final MARS model is the one
these classical models are described as follows. Curi et al. (1979),
with the lowest GCV.
based on their experimental work on sediment extractors, have
found the removal efficiency of vortex-type settling basins can be
2.6. Multiple linear regression (MLR) calculated as Eq. (8):
0 1
A MLR equation implemented for a predicted parameter has

B gs 0:88 C
several values which are calculated using Eq. (6): B g C
h ¼ 1:74 þ lnB f
B 0:58 C
C
(8)
Z ¼ c0 x1 c1 x2 c2 x3 c3 x4 c4 …xn cn (6) B Q C
@ A
where Z represents any dependent variable; x1 and x2 are the in-
dependent variables; c1 and c2 are the power constants; and n is the
where gs is the specific weight of sediment; gf is the specific weight
number of independent variables. For the silt removal efficiency of
of water; and Q is the discharge in the inlet channel. Paul et al.
a vortex tube silt ejector, the MLR takes the form in Eq. (7) (Mattar
(1991) examined the removal efficiency of settling basins and
& Alazba, 2019; Singh et al., 2021):
found by Eq. (9):
 0:225 u
t
h ¼ 26:93 d50 0:2488 C 0:0224 R0:6284 (7) h ¼ 73:4 þ 8:0 log (9)
d W

where h is the removal efficiency (%) of vortex tube silt ejector; d50 where u is the sediment fall velocity, and W is the vertical upward
represents the median grain diameter (mm); t/d is the ratio be- velocity at the center of the basin. Atkinson (1994a) proposed a
tween the thickness (t) of the slit opening and diameter (d) of mathematical model for the estimation of the removal efficiency of
vortex conduit (cm); C is the silt material concentration in ppm; a vortex tube silt ejector as Eq. (10):
and R is the extraction ratio (%). 3
ða

V 1  z z
þ 1 5  e U* ðD Þ  d
U*; 15 u z a
a þ U* þ ln
2.7. Development of the AI-models U* k D D
h¼ a
3
ðD

The development of models follows a hit-and-trial process. At V 1  z
7
z
þ 1 5  e U* ðD Þ  d
U; 15 u z a
a  U** þ þ ln
the initial stage, a lower value of the primary parameters is selected, U* k D D
and the performance of the model compared to actual values is cross b
checked. The value of primary parameters is increased step-by-step (10)

where a is the non-dimensional parameter which is the ratio be-

Table 1
tween the thickness of bed layer (2d50) and flow depth (D); V is the
Primary parameters used with SVM, RF, RT, and MARS models.
flow mean velocity; U* is the shear velocity; U*0 is the grain shear
Approach Radial basis kernel Pearson VII kernel velocity; a is the ratio between dividing stream height and total
SVM Ck ¼ 2, g ¼ 1 Ck ¼ 2, u ¼ 0.1, s ¼ 1 flow depth; z is the water depth from the bed level; and k is the von
RF k ¼ 10, m ¼ 1, I ¼ 100 Karman's constant (0.4). A model is given by Singh et al. (2016) for
RT k¼1 the estimation of the ejection efficacy of tunnel extractors as Eq.
MARS Pc intercept ¼ 2; Basis function ¼ 7
(11):
 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627 619

Fig. 3. Plan view of the experimental arrangement.

Table 3
Characteristics of the experimental observations.

Input variable Unit Training data set

Minimum Maximum Mean Standard

deviation

d50 mm 0.210 0.840 0.494 0.228

C ppm 207.0 473.0 381.0 62.364
R % 1.250 7.500 3.364 1.780
t/d d 0.125 0.300 0.216 0.088
h % 16.800 83.200 36.946 15.053

Testing dataset

Fig. 4. A view of the embedded model of the vortex tube in the test channel bed. Minimum Maximum Mean Standard
deviation

d50 mm 0.210 0.840 0.494 0.229

C ppm 207.0 265.0 241.0 22.300
h ¼ 192:08 C 0:392 d50 0:5983 R0:3766 (11) R % 1.250 7.500 3.302 1.887
t/d d 0.125 0.300 0.205 0.088
h % 19.90 85.100 40.109 15.981

4. Experimental setup

The experiments were done in a channel having dimensions: conduit with a regulating valve, where the maximum capacity of
width ¼ 0.3 m, depth ¼ 0.5 m, and length ¼ 14.50 m. The flow was flow was measured at 0.016 m3 =s. The vortex tube silt ejector
extracted for the flume from an overhead tank through a steel model was fitted across the entire width of the channel bed, and at

Table 2
Scheme of the experimental matrix.

Flow mean velocity Ratio between slot thickness and diameter of the tube, t/d Size of sediment, d50 Percentage extraction ratio, R
(m/s) (mm)

0.33 0.1250 0.840, 0.504 6.25%, 3.44%

0.424, 0.210
0.33 0.1250 0.840, 0.504 3.13%, 1.75%
0.424, 0.210
0.33 0.1250 0.840, 0.504 2.50%, 1.31%
0.424, 0.210
0.33 0.3000 0.840, 0.504 7.50%, 3.94%
0.424, 0.210
0.33 0.3000 0.840, 0.504 3.75%, 2.37%
0.424, 0.210
0.33 0.3000 0.840, 0.504 2.94%, 1.56%
0.424, 0.210
620 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627
its downstream end, the discharge was controlled by the regulating
valve (Fig. 3). Two models fabricated from steel conduit were used
by changing the diameter and slit opening thickness. The
embedded view of a model of the vortex tube silt ejector in the
channel bed is shown in Fig. 4. The silt was poured into the flume
through a sediment feeder mounted on the two supporting walls of
the flume, 3.92 m upstream from the vortex tube model. Removal
of silt material transported in the channel as a percentage quantity
is known as the removal efficiency of the vortex tube silt ejector.
The flow carrying silt was permitted to cross the vortex tube silt
ejector, and the silt trapped by the tube was accumulated, dried,
and assessed to check the efficiency of the vortex tube silt ejector.
Some questionable tests have been repeated twice to ensure the
accuracy of the experiments, consisting of a total of 144 test runs.
Table 2 lists a summary of the details of the experimental matrix.
4.1. Dataset
A total of 144 test datasets were collected through laboratory
experiments. 70% of the 144 test data sets were used for model
training, the remaining 30% were used for model testing. Input
data comprises of sediment size, d50 (mm); the ratio of the slit
opening thickness to diameter (t/d) of the vortex tube silt ejector;
concentration of sediment C (ppm); the extraction ratio R (%),
Fig. 5. Correlation plots for input and output variables with a modeled removal efficiency of the vortex tube.
whereas sediment removal efficiency h (%) was taken as model
output. Table 3 lists the features of the training and testing data
sets.
4.2. Analysis of variables
The collected data were classified in the form of d50, C, R, and
t/d as the input variables and the removal efficiency (h) as the
output variable. Further, the relations between the parameters
are shown in Fig. 5. However, extraction ratio (R) and removal
efficiency (h) showed the maximum correlation among them (¼
0.82); on the contrary concentration (C) gave a poor correlation
with removal efficiency (h) (¼  0.124). Figure 5 shows some
general idea about the inter-dependency among the input
and output based on the current experimental investigation/
scheme.
4.3. Model performance criteria
In order to evaluate the model performance, three basic
statistical parameters were considered. Once satisfactory accu-
racy was obtained in the training phase, the models were
opened for testing. For evaluation of the performance of the
models, these three parameters were chosen: NasheSutcliffe
 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627 621

Table 4
Evaluation metrics for the various techniques for prediction of silt removal efficiency for a vortex tube silt ejector.

Modeling technique Training dataset Testing dataset

CC RMSE NSE CC RMSE NSE

Pearson function kernel-based SVM (SVM_PUK) 0.9981 1.2909 0.9962 0.9106 14.4735 0.5708
Radial basis kernel-based- SVM (SVM_RBF) 0.9393 5.5423 0.8631 0.9177 9.1954 0.6612
RF 0.9956 1.4430 0.9907 0.9921 2.4771 0.9754
RT 0.9983 0.8682 0.9966 0.9957 2.1652 0.9812
MLR 0.9198 5.8816 0.8458 0.9382 7.2300 0.7906
MARS 0.9427 4.9942 0.8888 0.9505 6.0555 0.8530
Singh (2016) 0.6912 21.5243 1.0654 0.7092 21.4813 0.8488
Atkinson (1994a) 0.3026 31.7748 3.5009 0.2974 30.2495 2.6661
Curi et al. (1979) 0.3055 33.6746 4.0552 0.5095 37.6347 4.6747
Paul et al. (1991) 0.3051 36.8723 5.0609 0.3009 34.3456 3.7262

Fig. 6. Flow diagram for predicting the removal efficiency of the vortex tube silt ejector.

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
model efficiency (NSE) (McCuen et al., 2006), correlation coef- u
u 1 Xm
ficient (CC), and root mean square error (RMSE), which are RMSE ¼ t ðI  JÞ2 (13)
calculated as Eqs. (12)e(14): m i¼1

Pm
ðI  JÞ2
P P P NSE ¼ 1  Pi¼1 (14)
m IJ eð IÞð JÞ m 2
CC ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffirffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi (12) i¼1 ðI  jÞ
P P P P
m I 2  ð JÞ2 n J 2  ð JÞ2
where m is the total number of values; I and J are the actual and
estimated values, respectively; and j is the mean of actual values. The
combined use of CC, RMSE, and NSE provides an appropriate measure
622 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627

Fig. 7. (a) Scatter diagram; (b) performance diagram of actual and predicted removal efficiency values for SVM_PUK model.

Fig. 8. (a) Scatter diagram; (b) performance diagram of actual and predicted removal efficiency values for SVM_RBF model.

Fig. 9. (a) Scatter diagram; (b) performance diagram of actual and predicted removal efficiency values for RF model.

of each model's accuracy. This statistical comparison allows for an
evaluation of the reliability of the modeling techniques used in this
research. In addition, a Taylor diagram (Taylor, 2001) was included to
assess the accuracy of the implemented models in the current study.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Model performance statistics
This section presents the predicted results obtained from the
SVM, RF, RT, MLR, and MARS models. The three statistical
parameters, CC, RMSE, and NSE, are selected to evaluate the per-
formance of the aforementioned AI-based models along with four
traditional empirical models (Atkinson, 1994a; Curi et al., 1979; Paul
et al., 1991; Singh, 2016). Table 4 lists the values of statistical
evaluation metrics of the models for the training and testing
datasets. Also, a flow diagram is shown in Fig. 6.
Table 4 reveals the predicted results of all the models in the
training phase as well as the testing phase. The RT model predicted
greater efficiency in the training phase (CC ¼ 0.9983, RMSE ¼ 0.8682,
NSE ¼ 0.9966) followed by the Pearson function kernel-based
SVM_PUK (CC ¼ 0.9981, RMSE ¼ 1.2909, NSE ¼ 0.9962), RF
 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627 623

Fig. 10. (a) Scatter diagram; (b) performance diagram of actual and predicted removal efficiency values for RT model.

Fig. 11. (a) Scatter diagram; (b) performance diagram of actual and predicted removal efficiency values for MLR model.

Fig. 12. (a) Scatter diagram; (b) performance diagram of actual and predicted removal efficiency values for MARS model.

(CC ¼ 0.9956, RMSE ¼ 1.4430, NSE ¼ 0.9907), Radial basis kernel-
based-SVM_RBF (CC ¼ 0.9393, RMSE ¼ 5.5423, NSE ¼ 0.8631),
MARS (CC ¼ 0.9427, RMSE ¼ 4.9942, NSE ¼ 0.8888), and MLR
(CC ¼ 0.9198, RMSE ¼ 5.8816, NSE ¼ 0.8458) models. The conven-
tional models provided the worst prediction with a negative NSE,
indicating that the mean observed value performs better than any of
these models. Moreover, based on CC, RMSE, and NSE parameters, it
is evident that RT outperformed the other applied models in the
training phase. According to Table 4, the RT-based model registered
the best ranking among other applied models, followed by the RF,
MARS, MLR, SVM_RBF, and SVM_PUK models in the testing phase.
The SVM_PUK model has the worst prediction among the AI models
on CC, RMSE, and NSE parameters, as listed in Table 4.
Figures 7e12 depict the optimized models using all data in the
form of a scatter diagram and performance line diagram for the
training and testing phases. In the performance diagram, the first
100 datasets show the training results, and the remaining 44 show
testing results. As a result, it was clear that the proposed RT model
624 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627

Fig. 13. Distribution of relative errors (%) for (a) AI models and (b) Conventional models.

(Fig. 10) was more accurate than the other applied models in pre-
dicting removal efficiency. The RF (Fig. 9), SVM (Figs. 7 and 8), and
MARS (Fig. 12) models also predicted removal efficiency well. The
agreement plot shows that the RT model (Fig. 10) predicted the
removal efficiency with the least error.
The RT model also yielded good agreement with the actual
values, and the model exhibited a good coefficient of determination
yield (R2 ¼ 0.9966 and 0.9915, respectively) in the training and
testing phases. The RT model was found to yield the highest effi-
ciency among all applied models, as shown in Figs. 7e12. For
further analysis, Fig. 13 shows the relative error distributions for all
AI models and traditional models in a box plot format, revealing
that the RT and RF models had the lowest relative errors when
compared to the other implemented models. Thus, it is clear that
the best result was achieved by the RT model. For instance, the
relative errors (%) for the RT model were within a range of (3.8,
0%) and the model produced the best results when compared with
the RF (6.19, 3.05%), SVM_PUK (29.24, 11.78%), SVM_RBF
(22.68, 7.96%), MARS (15.06, 10.59%), and MLR (15.06, 10.59%),
and all conventional models are as shown in Fig. 13.
Figure 14 shows the Taylor diagram for all AI-based models.
Figure 14a shows that the RT model's value is closer to the actual
value than the other models in the training phase. The Taylor
diagram is based on the distance between the points acquired by
the AI models and the actual value. It is also worth mentioning that
the RF's performance is nearly the same as the RT value (Fig. 14a).
The RT model performs well in the testing phase again (Fig. 14b).
The MARS model was developed using MATLAB R (2021). The
advantage of the MARS model is that it provides the equation in
terms of Basis Functions. Table 5 lists the MARS model's hyper-
parameters, including the interaction level, the maximum number
of BFs, and initial interaction values. The piecewise linear BF was
used to get the best results, and the maximum interaction level (2)
was found using a trial-and-error approach. The number of BFs in
the forward stage was 16, and 10 BFs were pruned during the
backward phase to minimize overfitting, leaving only six effective
BFs. Table 5 lists the MARS model's optimal equation, including the
linear BFs' intercepts and coefficients.
Figure 15 shows the comparison between the actual and pre-
dicted values of the removal efficiency for all the traditional (con-
ventional) predictive empirical models given by prior researchers
and the AI-based techniques generated during the current study.
The findings of the current study demonstrate that all AI-based
approaches provided more accurate removal efficiency values
than all the conventional models. Also, the current study found that
the RT achieved more accurate predictions of the removal efficiency

Fig. 14. Taylor diagrams for all AI models in the (a) training and (b) testing phases.
 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627 625

Table 5 Table 6
BFs and related coefficients of the MARS model. Comparison with previous studies.

Basis function Equation Coefficient No. Ref. CC RMSE NSE

Intercept d þ48.2622 1 Current Study 0.9957 2.1652 0.9812

BF1 max (0, R  6.25)
BF2 max (0, 6.25  R)
BF3 max (0, d50  0.504)
BF4 max (0, 0.504  d50)
BF5 max (0, 3.125  R)
BF6 BF2  max (0, 0.504  d50)
than the other models. The full model performance was assessed
within the range of ± 20%. The RT model provided the best results
among all applied models, and the RF model also provided
comparably good results. However, the values predicted by all the
conventional models are scattered beyond the agreement line, and
it can be concluded that all traditional (conventional) models
provided poor performance compared to the AI models.
Furthermore, the best model was compared with previous
studies (Kumar et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2021; Tiwari et al., 2020).
The comparison was made based on the values of the coefficient of
correlation (CC), root mean square error (RMSE), and Nash Sutcliffe
model efficiency (NSE). These values are obtained for the best model
of Kumar et al. (2019), Singh et al. (2021), and Tiwari et al. (2020),
listed in Table 6. The values of CC for Kumar et al. (2019), Singh et al.
(2021), and Tiwari et al. (2020) are 0.9774, 0.9920, and 0.9720,
respectively, which are less than the value obtained from the cur-
rent study (0.9957). Similarly, the values of RMSE are more than the
value obtained from the current study. In the same context, the
values of NSE are less than the value obtained from the current
study. Thus, Kumar et al. (2019), Singh et al. (2021), and Tiwari et al.
(2020) gave poorer performance than the best model in the current
study. Moreover, based on Tables 4 and 6, and Figs. 7e15, it can be
concluded that the RT-based model performed the best.
þ23.3906 2 Kumar et al. (2019) 0.9774 9.2487 d
2.3149 3 Singh et al. (2021) 0.9920 2.4770 0.9750
þ12.5492 4 Tiwari, Sihag, Kumar, and Ranjan (2020) 0.9720 3.9060 0.9390
61.2802
9.8722
þ11.5047
Table 7 lists the results of a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) along with different test parameters, i.e., F, p-value, and
critical value F (F-critical). The statistical criterion for hypothesis
testing was a significance level, a, of 0.05 and the corresponding F-
critical is listed in Table 7. The null hypothesis of significant dif-
ference between actual and predicted values is rejected. The F value
is greater than or equal to the F-critical value, F  F-critical (sig-
nificant results) (Vand et al.. 2018). Further, Table 7 suggests that
there is no significant difference between actual and predicted
values of removal efficiency of the vortex tube silt ejector utilizing
the different AI-based approaches. On careful examination of
Fig. 13, it is further substantiated that the estimated value obtained
from the RT-based model shows fair agreement with the actual
value, as does the RF model. Additionally, Figs. 7e12 and 14, and
Tables 4 and 6 suggest that all AI-based models were performing
well in estimating the removal efficiency for the vortex tube silt
ejector compared to the traditional (conventional) empirical
models derived by previous studies.
5.2. Sensitivity analysis
The parametric sensitivity was analyzed to ascertain the main
input variables affecting the vortex tube silt ejector removal effi-
ciency. For this, the RT model was best suited for performance of
sensitivity analysis with this dataset. Various sets of training data

Fig. 15. Comparison of performances for conventional models with (a) SVM_PUK, (b) SVM_RBF, (c) RF, (d) RT, (e) MLR, and (f) MARS.
626 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627

Table 7
Results of ANOVA single factor test.

Technique F p-value F-critical Difference between actual

and estimated values

SVM_PUK 0.671863 0.414669 3.951882 Insignificant

SVM_RBF 2.981463 0.087814 3.951882 Insignificant
RF 0.181483 0.671166 3.951882 Insignificant
RT 0.221651 0.638977 3.951882 Insignificant
MLR 2.094461 0.151469 3.951882 Insignificant
MARS 0.116116 0.734117 3.951882 Insignificant

Table 8 Declaration of competing interest

Sensitivity study applied to the RT model.
Input combination Input variable removed Random tree
CC
d50, C, t/d, R 0.9957
C, t/d, R d50 0.8389
d50, t/d, R C 0.9967
d50, C, R t/d 0.9956
d50, C, t/d R 0.4247
were generated by eliminating input variables one by one, and the
results were reported in evaluating the performance metrics CC
and RMSE. Findings in Table 8 suggest that the extraction ratio (R)
plays a key role in estimating the removal efficiency of the vortex
tube silt ejector with respect to the other input variables.
6. Conclusions
The current study attempts to investigate the prediction of the
vortex tube silt ejector removal efficiency in a total perspective
using flume-based experiments and the simultaneous use of
approaches-AI. The major findings of the current study can be
summarized as follows:
1) The RT model outperformed the other AI-based, data-driven
models as well as the traditional (conventional) regression-
based empirical models in the computation of the vortex tube
silt ejector removal efficiency. The RF model offered the next
best prediction results.
2) The study's findings exhibited that estimating the removal ef-
ficacy of the vortex tube silt ejector with traditional models
results in very high errors except for the modern conventional
MLR models developed in the current study.
3) The findings of a one-way ANOVA imply that there was no
significant difference between actual and predicted values for
the AI-based models and the modern conventional MLR models
developed in the current study.
4) The sensitivity study revealed that the extraction ratio was the
key variable affecting the computation of the removal efficiency
of the vortex tube silt ejector with respect to the other input
variables.
5) The current study assesses the capability of four AI techniques,
i.e., SVM, RF, RT, and MARS; and one modern classical-based
MLR, in modeling the removal efficiency of the vortex tube silt
ejector utilizing experimental observations. A fair amount of
data from various field sites would be required to arrive at more
solid conclusions in future research.
Data availability statement
All supporting data and models used during this study can be
made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
RMSE appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
2.1652
8.7926 References
3.419
2.2459 Ahmed, M. (1958). Final recommendation from experiments of silt ejector of DG
14.8358 Kahn canal. Hydraulic Research, International Association for Hydraulic Research,
13, 304.
Ali, J., Khan, R., Ahmad, N., & Maqsood, I. (2012). Random forests and decision trees.
International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 9(5), 272.
Athar, M., Kothyari, U. C., & Garde, R. J. (2002). Sediment removal efficiency of vortex
chamber type sediment extractor. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 128(12),
1051e1059.
Athar, M., Kothyari, U. C., & Garde, R. J. (2003). Distribution of sediment concen-
tration in the vortex chamber type sediment extractor. Journal of Hydraulic
Research, 41(4), 427e438.
Atkinson, E. (1994a). Vortex-tube sediment extractors. I: Trapping efficiency. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 120(10), 1110e1125.
Atkinson, E. (1994b). Vortex-tube sediment extractors. II: Design. Journal of Hy-
draulic Engineering, 120(10), 1126e1138.
Blench, T. (1952). Discussion of Blench on sand traps. Transactions of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, 117(1), 213-213.
Breiman, L. (1999). Using adaptive bagging to debias regressions (Report No. 547).
Statistics Department, University of California at Berkeley.
Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5e32.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and
regression trees. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Curi, K. V., Esen, I. I., & Velioglu, S. G. (1979). Vortex type solid liquid separator.
Progress in Water Technology, 7(2), 183e190.
Dhillon, G. S., Aggarwal, R. K., & Kotwal, A. N. (1977). Model prototype conformity
study of sediment ejectors on upper bari doab hydel channel. Proceedings of the
46th Research Session of the Central Board of Irrigation and Power, 3, 47e56.
Dongre, N. B. (2002). Settling basin design (M. Tech. dissertation). Roorkee, India:
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology.
Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R., & Hastie, T. (2008). A working guide to boosted regression
trees. Journal of Animal Ecology, 77(4), 802e813.
Erdal, H., & Karahanog _ (2016). Bagging ensemble models for bank profitability:
lu, I.
An emprical research on Turkish development and investment banks. Applied
Soft Computing, 49, 861e867.
Friedman, J. H. (1991). Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Annals of Statistics,
19(1), 1e67.
Garde, R. J., & Pande, P. K. (1976). Use of sediment transport concepts in design of
tunnel-type sediment excluders. Bulletin of the International Commission Irri-
gation and Drainage, 101e108. (III)
Garde, R. J., Ranga Raju, K. G., & Sujudi, A. W. R. (1990). Design of settling basins.
Journal of Hydraulic Research, 28(1), 81e91.
Han, S., Qubo, C., & Meng, H. (2012). Parameter selection in SVM with RBF kernel
function. In World Automation Congress 2012 (pp. 1e4). IEEE.
Indian Standard (IS): 6004. (1980). Criteria for hydraulic design of sediment ejector for
irrigation and power channels. Indian Standard Institution, Manak Bhawan, Vol.
9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, India. Retrieved from: https://
seismicconsolidation.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/criteria-for-hydraulic-
design-of-sediment-ejector-for-irrigation-and-power-channels
Kothyari, U. C., Pande, P. K., & Gahlot, A. K. (1994). Design for tunnel-type sediment
excluder. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 120(1), 36e47.
Kumar, M., Sihag, P., & Kumar, S. (2019). Evaluation and analysis of trapping effi-
ciency of vortex tube ejector using soft computing techniques. Journal Indian
Water Resources Society, 39(3), 1e9.
Lawrence, P., & Sanmuganathan, K. (1981). Field verification of vortex tube design
method. In T. Tingsanchali, & H. Eggers (Eds.), Proceedings of the south-east asian
regional symposium on problems of soil erosion and sedimentation, Asian Institute
of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand January 27-29, 1981.
Mahmood, K. (1975). Flow through vortex tube sediment ejectors. In Irrigation &
Drainage in an Age of Competition for resources (pp. 421e450). ASCE.
Mashauri, D. A. (1986). Modelling of a vortex settling basin for primary clarification of
water. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of Technology.
 S. Kumar et al. / International Journal of Sediment Research 38 (2023) 615e627
MATLAB. (2021). Version (R2021a). Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc.
Mattar, M. A., & Alazba, A. A. (2019). GEP and MLR approaches for the prediction
of reference evapotranspiration. Neural Computing & Applications, 31,
5843e5855.
McCuen, R. H., Knight, Z., & Cutter, A. G. (2006). Evaluation of the nashesutcliffe
efficiency index. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 11(6), 597e602.
Orak, S. J., & Asareh, A. (2015). Effect of gradation on sediment extraction (trapping)
efficiency in structures of vortex tube with different angles. Journal of Walia, 31,
53e58.
Parshall, R. L. (1952). Model and prototype studies of sand traps. Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 117(1), 204e212.
Paul, T. C., Sayal, S. K., Sakhuja, V. S., & Dhillon, G. S. (1991). Vortex-settling basin
design considerations. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 117(2), 172e189.
Raju, K. R., Kothyari, U. C., Srivastav, S., & Saxena, M. (1999). Sediment removal ef-
ficiency of settling basins. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 125(5),
308e314.
Ranga, R., & Kothyari, U. C. (2004). Sediment management in hydroelectric projects.
In Proceeding of Ninth International Symposium on River Sedimentation, Yichang
(China) (Vol. 1, pp. 19e28). Retrieved from: https://www.iahr.org/library/infor?
pid¼17281
Robinson, A. R. (1962). Vortex tube sand trap. Transactions of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, 127(3), 391e425.
Russell, C. (1991). The optimum location for a canal sediment extractor. Wallingford,
UK: Hydraulics Research Wallingford.. Report OD/TN 53.
Safari, M. J. S. (2020). Hybridization of multivariate adaptive regression splines and
random forest models with an empirical equation for sediment deposition
prediction in open channel flow. Journal of Hydrology, 590, 125392.
Samui, P. (2013). Multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) for prediction of
elastic modulus of jointed rock mass. Geotechnical & Geological Engineering,
31(1), 249e253.
Sarwar, M. K., Anjum, M. N., & Mahmood, S. (2013). Impact of silt excluder on
sediment management of an irrigation canal: A case study of DG Khan Canal,
Pakistan. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 38(12), 3301e3307.
Sattari, M. T., Pal, M., Mirabbasi, R., & Abraham, J. (2018). Ensemble of M5 model tree
based modelling of sodium adsorption ratio. Journal of AI and Data Mining, 6(1),
69e78.
Saxena, M. (1996). Effect of flushing on efficiency of settling basins. Roorkee (UP),
India: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee. (M.E.
dissertation)
Schrimpf, W. (1990). Discussion of" Design of settling basins" by R. J. Garde, K.
G. Ranga Raju, & A. W. R. Sujudi. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 29(1),
136e142.
Shabani, S., Samadianfard, S., Sattari, M. T., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Kmet, T., &
Varkonyi-Ko czy, A. R. (2020). Modeling pan evaporation using Gaussian process
regression K-nearest neighbors random forest and support vector machines;
comparative analysis. Atmosphere, 11(1), 66.
627
Sharafati, A., Yasa, R., & Azamathulla, H. M. (2018). Assessment of stochastic ap-
proaches in prediction of wave-induced pipeline scour depth. Journal of Pipeline
Systems Engineering and Practice, 9(4), 04018024.
Sihag, P., Jain, P., & Kumar, M. (2018). Modelling of impact of water quality on
recharging rate of storm water filter system using various kernel function based
regression. Modeling earth systems and environment, 4, 61e68.
Singh, B. K. (2016). Study of sediment extractor (Doctoral dissertation). Kurukshetra,
India: Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology.
Singh, K. K. (1987). Experimental study of settling basins. Roorkee (UP), India:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee. (M.E. dissertation)
Singh, K. K., Pal, M., Ojha, C. S. P., & Singh, V. P. (2008). Estimation of removal ef-
ficiency for settling basins using neural networks and support vector machines.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 13(3), 146e155.
Singh, B., Sihag, P., Singh, K., & Kumar, S. (2021). Estimation of trapping efficiency of
a vortex tube silt ejector. International Journal of River Basin Management, 19(3),
261e269.
Singh, B. K., Tiwari, N. K., & Singh, K. K. (2016). Support vector regression-based
modelling of trapping efficiency of silt ejector. Journal of the Indian Water Re-
sources Society, 36(1), 41e49.
Smola, A. J., & Scho€lkopf, B. (2004). A tutorial on support vector regression. Statistics
and Computing, 14, 199e222.
Srivastava, S. (1997). Effect of flushing on the efficiency of settling basin. Roorkee, UP,
India: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roorkee. (M.E. Thesis)
Sujudi, A. W. R. (1987). Design of settling basins. Roorkee, UP, India: Department of
Hydrology, University of Roorkee. (M.E. Thesis)
Taylor, K. E. (2001). Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single
diagram. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 106(D7), 7183e7192.
Tiwari, N. K., Sihag, P., Kumar, S., & Ranjan, S. (2020). Prediction of trapping effi-
ciency of vortex tube ejector. ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 26(1), 59e67.
Tiwari, N. K., Sihag, P., Singh, B. K., Ranjan, S., & Singh, K. K. (2020b). Estimation of
tunnel desilter sediment removal efficiency by ANFIS. Iranian Journal of Science
and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, 44(3), 959e974.
Vand, A. S., Sihag, P., Singh, B., & Zand, M. (2018). Comparative evaluation of infil-
tration models. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(10), 4173e4184.
Vapnik, V. (1998). The support vector method of function estimation. In Nonlinear
modeling (pp. 55e85). Boston: Springer.
Yilmaz, B., Aras, E., Nacar, S., & Kankal, M. (2018). Estimating suspended sediment
load with multivariate adaptive regression spline, teaching-learning based
optimization, and artificial bee colony models. Science of the Total Environment,
639, 826e840.
Zabihi, M., Pourghasemi, H. R., Pourtaghi, Z. S., & Behzadfar, M. (2016). GIS-based
multivariate adaptive regression spline and random forest models for ground-
water potential mapping in Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(8), 1e19.
Zha, W., & Chan, W. Y. (2005). Objective speech quality measurement using
statistical data mining. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing, 2005(9),
1e15.