Gene-Expression Programming Approach for

Development of a Mathematical Model

of Energy Dissipation on Block Ramps
Mostafa Rahmanshahi 1 and Mahmood Shafai Bejestan, A.M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A block ramp is an environmentally friendly stream restoration structure consisting of a base material of stone with minimal
negative environmental impact. This not only decreases riverbed shear stress but also increases the flow resistance, thus reducing excess
kinetic energy of the flow. This study used two mathematical models that were developed in a dimensionless form for smooth and rough-bed
ramps. The models were calibrated and validated by two sets of experimental tests. A total of 308 experimental runs were done with eight
different ramp slopes and six different gravel material sizes. The experimental results indicated that an increase in the relative roughness
enhances energy dissipation. Additionally, energy dissipation increases along with an increase of ramp slope. Using a gene-expression
programming soft computing model, two mathematical models were developed to estimate energy dissipation on smooth and rough-
bed ramps. Additionally, the energy-loss performance of two configurations of interlocked and dumped blocks ramps was compared.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001442. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Energy dissipation; Block ramp; Gene-expression programming; Dimensional analysis.

Introduction continuous bed roughness on a chute, known as a block ramp, is

Control of kinetic energy is a key design challenge for hydraulic
structures. High-speed flows occur at spillway structures of dams,
in the drainage systems of urban areas, and in steep mountain riv-
ers. Excessive kinetic energy from these flows can cause serious
damage to the structure itself by scouring immediately downstream
of the structure. To dissipate energy downstream of chutes, conven-
tional hydraulic jump stilling basins or flip buckets have been used.
Another solution to dissipate energy along the chute is to design
stepped chutes instead of those with a smooth surface. Many
researchers have investigated energy dissipation in different
types of stepped spillways (Felder and Chanson 2016; Zhang and
Chanson 2016).
Another energy-dissipation technique is placing obstacles or
creating roughness on the bed surface of the chute. Use of large-
dimensional blocks causes detachment of the water jets on the
ramp and enhances turbulent flow, thus dissipating kinetic energy.
However, some problems associated with the use of blocks include
construction cost and cavitation risk.
Rocks are the most available and economical material in
hydraulic engineering practice and are used for dam construc-
tion, revetments, porous weirs, energy-dissipater structures, and
groins, among others (Stephenson 1979a, b; Shafai Bejestan and
Kazemi Nasaban 2011; Fathi-Moghaddam et al. 2018). The use of
1
Research Hydraulic Engineer, Ab Sang Mehr Instrumentation
Company, 3rd St., Valiasr Ave., Tehran 14336-33647, Iran (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8318-3249. Email:
m.rahmanshahi@yahoo.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Hydraulic Structures, Faculty of Water Science
Engineering, Shahid Chamran Univ. of Ahvaz, Ahvaz 61357-83151, Iran.
Email: m_shafai@yahoo.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 1, 2018; approved
on September 11, 2019; published online on December 6, 2019. Discussion
period open until May 6, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437.
another technique that might be more applicable in some cases.
A block ramp is a stream restoration structure consisting of a
base material of stone, which ensures the morphological continuity
of the stream with minimal negative environmental impact. This
approach reduces bed shear stress and increases flow resistance,
thereby dissipating energy.
In comparison with a conventional concrete energy dissipater,
the main advantages of block ramps include (1) higher stability
and flexibility against uplift pressure and seismic forces, (2) lower
construction and maintenance costs, and (3) permeability, which
promotes highly turbulent and aeration of the flow and, in turn,
water purification (Mohamed 2010). Therefore, these structures
have recently been considered due to practical construction require-
ments, economic costs, and most importantly, compatibility with
the surrounding landscape. A block ramp energy dissipater can be
considered as an environmentally friendly structure.
Various studies have evaluated energy dissipation for a variety
of block ramps and conditions, including reinforced block ramps
(Pagliara and Chiavaccini 2006b), block ramps under submerged
conditions (Pagliara et al. 2008b), permeable block ramps (Pagliara
and Lotti 2009), and block ramps with staggered boulders (Ahmad
et al. 2009). Furthermore, many researchers have investigated
different aspects of block ramps, such as their stability and failure
mechanism (Pagliara and Chiavaccini 2004, 2007), flow resis-
tance and equivalent roughness (Rice et al. 1998; Pagliara and
Chiavaccini 2006c; Pagliara et al. 2008a), drag coefficient
(Oertel et al. 2011; Oertel and Schlenkhoff 2012), air entertainment
(Pagliara et al. 2010a, b, 2011), and downstream local scouring
(Pagliara 2007; Pagliara and Palermo 2008, 2010).
In an experimental study by Pagliara and Chiavaccini (2006a)
on block ramps with different slopes and different bed materials
(ranging from very coarse sand to small cobbles), the amount of
energy loss of such structures was found to be a function of relative
submergence, ramp slope, and the ratio between critical water
depth and ramp height. Furthermore, the results revealed that en-
ergy dissipation decreases with increasing ramp slope. Based on

© ASCE 04019033-1 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

 their experimental study, they proposed the following relation for Table 1. Range and correlation of independent variables compared with
relative energy dissipation on smooth-bed ramps and block ramps the dependent variable
for different roughnesses Independent
dimensionless variables
ΔE y Experimental
ΔEr ¼ ¼ A þ ð1 − AÞ expðB þ C · SÞ c ð1Þ test No. Ramp type Parameter yc =L yc =d50 S
E0 P
Set 1 Smooth ramp Correlation −0.838 a
— 0.415a
where ΔEr ¼ ðE0 − E1 Þ=E0 is the relative energy loss, where E0 is (calibration) Min 0.022 — 0.083
energy upstream of ramp and E1 is the energy immediately down- Max 0.060 — 0.25
stream of the ramp; yc = critical depth of flow; S = ramp slope; P = Block ramp Correlation −0.783a −0.757a 0.483a
height of the ramp; and A, B, and C = constant parameters that Min 0.022 1.390 0.083
depend on the roughness scale of the ramp as categorized into four Max 0.059 10.139 0.25
categories. Set 2 Smooth ramp Correlation −0.763a — 0.565a
(verification) Min 0.032 — 0.1
Ghare et al. (2010) presented a mathematical model correlating
—
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Max 0.088 0.268

the representative bed material size of a block ramp with the step Block ramp Correlation −0.784a −0.750a 0.506a
height of the stepped chute using multiple regression analysis. Min 0.032 2.045 0.1
Their findings for a stepped chute can also be used for the design Max 0.088 12 0.268
of a block ramp. Ahmad and Srisvastava (2014) experimentally a
Correlation is significant at the level of 0.01.
studied energy dissipation on block ramps with large-scale rough-
ness. In contrast to Pagliara and Chiavaccini (2006a), their results
indicated that energy dissipation per unit length of the ramp grows
with an increase in the ramp slope.
important and therefore the Reynolds number can be omitted from
The aim of the present study is to obtain new experimental data
Eq. (3). This statement agrees with the research in the literature
for developing a practical mathematical model for prediction of
referring to the hydraulic resistance of gravel-bed rivers in the pres-
the energy-dissipation relationship over both smooth and rough-
ence of macroroughness (Lawrence 1997; Ferro 1999), for which
bed ramps based on a gene-expression programming (GEP) soft
the Reynolds number is negligible if R > 104 . Accordingly, the
computing model. To this aim, two sets of experimental test data
relative energy dissipation ΔEr for the rough-bed ramp can be
resulting from different hydraulic conditions and various ramp
expressed using the following functional relation:
geometric parameters were collected to calibrate and validate the


developed mathematical models. In addition, the performance of ΔE yc y c
an interlocked-block ramp was compared with that of a dumped- ΔEr ¼ ¼f ; ;S ð4Þ
E0 d50 L
block-type ramp in terms of energy dissipation.
A smooth-bed ramp can be considered as a limit case in which
the diameter of the bed material tends to zero; thus the yc =d50 ratio
Functional Relationship for Energy Dissipation can be considered negligible in a smooth-bed ramp. Consequently,
the general dimensionless mathematical model of the energy dis-
The first step in developing a general relation is to select variables
sipation of a smooth-bed ramp can be simplified as follows:
that affect the energy dissipation of the flow. These parameters fo-


cus on input parameters that keep the relation simple. The relative ΔE yc
energy dissipation of the flow over a block ramp, ΔEr , depends on ΔEr ¼ ¼f ;S ð5Þ
E0 L
the discharge per unit width of the ramp (q), representative diam-
eter of the material constituting the ramp for which 50% of material The ranges and correlation of independent variables compared
is finer (d50 ), ramp length (L), water dynamic viscosity (μ), water with the dependent variable in Eqs. (4) and (5) based on two sets of
density (ρ), surface tension (σ), gravitational acceleration (g), and experiments in this study are presented in Table 1.
ramp slope (S) (tangent of the bed slope angle). These variables can
be functionally expressed
fðΔEr ; q; d50 ; L; μ; ρ; σ; g; SÞ ¼ 0 ð2Þ Overview of Gene-Expression Programing

Because critical flow depth yc ¼ ðq2 =gÞ1=3 , using the
Buckingham Π theorem (Barenblatt 1987), the variables in Eq. (2)
can be expressed in a nondimensional form


ΔE y y
ΔEr ¼ ¼ f c ; c ; S; R; W ð3Þ
E0 d50 L
where f = functional symbol; yc =d50 = relative critical flow depth;
yc =L = ratio of critical depth to total ramp length; R = Reynolds
number; and W = Weber number.
In all experiments, the head over the ramps was larger than 3 cm
in order to eliminate the effect of surface tension; thus, the contri-
bution of the Weber number can be considered negligible (Horton
1907; Novak and Cabelka 1981).
The Reynolds number in this study was between 26,666.67 and
150,000; therefore, its value was high enough (R > 104 ) to have a
fully turbulent flow. Hence, the effect of the fluid viscosity is not
Over the last 2 decades, soft computing techniques such as fuzzy
logic (FL), artificial neural networks (ANNs), evolutionary compu-
tation (EC), support vector machine (SVM), genetic programming
(GP), and GEP, among others, have been successfully applied in
waterworks engineering (Azamathulla et al. 2009; Azamathulla
and Ghani 2010). In this study, to extract the relationships by stan-
dard regression method, frequency relationships were tested by
SPSS version 16 software. Considering that in a standard regres-
sion model, selection of mathematical function type is performed
by the user at each step and only constant ratios are determined by
the model, this method is very time-intensive. Further, it cannot be
claimed that the best type of mathematical function is fitted due to
the limitation of possible combinations of the selected mathemati-
cal functions. In a GEP model, both mathematical functions and
constant ratios are intelligently selected by the model. Regarding
the model’s metaheuristic nature due to the use of a genetic
algorithm, the appropriate function is selected with a high speed.

© ASCE 04019033-2 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

 Consequently, the present study attempts to utilize a new soft com-
puting technique, GEP, to develop two accurate energy-dissipation
relationships for ramps with either a smooth or rough bed.
GEP is a new technique of the tree-structured random-search
evolutionary algorithm derived from a genetic algorithm. This
method, first proposed by Ferreira (2001b), has been applied in
many fields such as regression, time-series prediction, and classi-
fication. Recently, this powerful global search tool has been
widely applied in symbolic regression for function finding. GEP
is a computational model for knowledge discovery from data,
especially knowledge expressed as formulas. According to the
classification of modeling techniques based on colors (Giustolisi
et al. 2007), whose meaning is related to the three levels of
prior information required, GEP can be classified as a gray-box
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
technique.
In this study, after extracting the dimensionless relationship of
energy dissipation on smooth-bed and rough-bed ramps in the first
step, the final relations are determined using the GEP system in
four major substeps in Step 2.
The first substep includes the settings performed by the user,
such as choosing the appropriate set of functions, number of
chromosomes, architecture of chromosomes (i.e., length of the
head and number of genes), and setting the rate of genetic oper-
ators as well as the number and range of numerical constants. The
authors initially used single gene and five length of heads, then
increased the number of genes and heads, one after another during
each run, and further monitored the performance of each model.
It was observed that the number of genes greater than 2 and
length of heads greater than 7 did not significantly enhance the
performance of GEP models. The authors then tried addition and
multiplication as linking functions and observed that linking the
sub-expression-trees (sub-ETs) by addition offered better fitness
values.
Secondly, the chromosomes of each individual of the population
are randomly generated using the set of terminals and set of func-
tions. In this problem, the set of terminals consists of independent
dimensionless parameters extracted in Step 1 along with numerical
constants. The functions and terminals are constructed together to
form a computer model with a root node and branches extending
from each function ending in a terminal.
In the third major substep, the chromosomes are expressed to
the treelike structure where each program is executed, after which
each individual is evaluated based on a fitness function. The tree
structure presents mathematical equations in a treelike form, which
includes numerical constant, dimensionless variables, arithmetic
operators (e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division),
mathematical functions (e.g., power, sin, and log, among others),
Boolean operators (e.g., and plus or), conditionals (e.g., if, then,
and else), and other user-defined functions. The selection of the
appropriate function set is not very straightforward; however, a
good guess can always be helpful in order to include all the neces-
sary functions. In this study, four basic arithmetic operators and
three basic mathematical functions (exp, power, and 1 − x) were
utilized. For this problem, the fitness, Fi , of an individual program,
i, is measured by
X
Ct
Fi ¼ ðM − jCði;jÞ − T j jÞ
j¼1
where M = range of selection; Cði;jÞ = value returned by the indi-
vidual chromosome i for fitness case j (out of Ct fitness cases); and
T i = target value for fitness case j. If jCði;jÞ − T j j (the precision) is
less than or equal to 0.01, then the precision is equal to zero, and
f i ¼ f max ¼ Ct · M. In this case M ¼ 100 was used.
© ASCE
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033
Table 2. Parameters of the optimized GEP model
Parameter Setting of parameter
Function set Addition, subtraction, multiplication,
division, exp, power, and 1 − x
Population size 100
Linking function Addition
Number of genes 2
Mutation rate 0.04
Inversion rate 0.1
One-point recombination rate 0.3
Two-point recombination rate 0.3
Gene recombination rate 0.1
Gene transposition rate 0.1
After evaluating the initial population generated in the previous
substep, if the program termination condition is satisfied, then the
program ends. Otherwise, according to the fourth substep, the
chromosomes are reproduced.
During reproduction, the chromosomes are modified by several
genetic operators including mutation, inversion, insertion sequence
(IS) transposition, root insertion sequence (RIS) transposition,
three types of crossover, gene crossover, and gene transposition.
In this stage, the selection of chromosomes for reproduction is
based on their fitness values using selection techniques such as
roulette wheel, tournament, or ranking methods. The better trees
have greater chances of being selected for transitioning to the next
iteration. These processes are continued until the maximum number
of iterations is reached or the specified convergence criterion is
achieved. The functional set and the rates assigned to operational
parameters used in GEP modeling during this study are listed in
Table 2. Additional details about the reproduction step have been
provided by Ferreira (2001a, b).
Experimental Setup and Measurements
The experimental tests were conducted at the Hydraulics
Laboratory of the Department of Hydraulic Structures at
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran. Runs were
carried out for block ramps with eight slopes between
1V ðVerticalÞ∶3.73H ðHorizontalÞ and 1V∶12H using six different
uniform materials sizes of 11, 14, 17, 22, 24, and 30 mm. The
ramp was made of plexiglass with a thickness of 10 mm with
an angle bar and iron glued onto the plexiglass to avoid warping.
Also, a granular material was fixed over the plexiglass to prevent
ramp movement and instability. This ramp was placed at the
upstream of a laboratory flume 8 m long, 0.3 m wide, and 0.8 m
high for the first section with a length of 2 m, and 0.4 m for
the second section with a length of 6 m, which was connected
upstream to a supply reservoir. A wave suppresser (installed in
the outlet of supply pipe) and a grid wall (installed in the inlet
section of the flume) were used to ensure smooth entry of water
over the ramp. A sluice gate installed at the end of the flume al-
lowed adjustment of the downstream water level at any required
level in order to create the hydraulic jump. The primary section of
ð6Þ the ramp was connected to a broad-crested weir with a length
of 0.3 m.
A total of 260 tests were conducted to evaluate energy dissipa-
tion and derivatives in the relations for both smooth-bed and rough-
bed ramps, with discharges ranging between 8 and 36 L=s with
an increment of 3 L=s. Furthermore, 48 new runs with different
hydraulic and geometry characteristics were carried out to validate
the developed relations. Validation experiments for every model
04019033-3 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Table 3. Details of two sets of the experimental model in this study
Experimental test No. Ramp type S d50 (mm) Q (L=s) P (m) L (m)
Set 1 (calibration) Smooth ramp 1∶4 — 8–36 0.46 1.9
1∶5 0.37
1∶6 0.31
1∶8 0.24
1∶12 0.16
Block ramp 1∶4 11, 14, 17, 24, 30 8–36 0.46 1.9
1∶5 11, 14, 17, 24, 30 0.37
1∶6 11, 14, 24, 30 0.31
1∶8 11, 14, 24, 30 0.24
1∶12 11, 14, 30 0.16
Set 2 (verification) Smooth ramp 1∶3.73 — 15–45 0.54 2.1
1∶7 0.21 1.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1∶10 0.19 1.9

Block ramp 1∶3.73 11, 14, 22 15–45 0.54 2.1
1∶7 11, 14, 22 0.21 1.5
1∶10 11, 14, 22 0.19 1.9

were performed for flow rates ranging from 15 to 45 L=s. The
physical model test matrix also included one dumped block
(gabionlike model) ramp in order to investigate the effect of boulder
arrangement on energy dissipation. Details from two sets of the
experimental model are reported in Table 3.
The measurement of discharge Q was performed by an electro-
magnetic flow meter with an accuracy of 1%, which was installed
on the main supply line of the laboratory. In each run, the water
depth was measured upstream of the ramp and downstream
of the hydraulic jump via a point gauge (with an accuracy of
0.1 mm) after stabilizing the water level. Meanwhile, minor
irregularities at the water surface, primarily due to the influence
of the side walls, resulted in an overall accuracy with the order
of 0.1 mm. Flow depth was recorded at three points across each
section (at W=4, W=2, and 3W=4, where W is the flume width),
and the mean of the three values was considered as the depth
for each point. A schematic view of the experimental apparatus
is displayed in Fig. 1.
In the experiments, after stabilizing the flow discharge and the
upstream head over the weir, the upstream head (water surface
elevation) was measured upstream of the ramp at a distance of about
four times of the flow depth over the ramp crest. Due to the irregu-
larity and turbulence of flow at the toe of the ramp, downstream
water depth (y1 ) was determined as the upstream conjugate of
the hydraulic jump by applying the Belanger equation. For this,
the downstream water depth was slowly increased using the
downstream sluice gate until the upstream section of the hydraulic
jump was in a cross section where the flow direction was practically
horizontal.
Energy dissipation of flow over the ramp was calculated for each
run using the water surface level measured in the upstream
approach flow and flow depth at the toe of the ramp, which was
calculated based on hydraulic jump and Belanger equation. Hence,
the energy dissipation between the entrance and the toe of a ramp
can be written as follows:
E0 − E1
ΔEr ¼
E0
where E0 ¼ H þ v2 =2g; E1 ¼ y1 þ v21 =2g; v1 ¼ q=y1 is the down-
stream velocity; and v ¼ q=H represents the upstream approach
velocity. Mean flow velocities can be determined using the continu-
ity equation.
Results and Discussion
Effects of Relative Roughness and Bed Slope on
Energy Dissipation
As previously described, the extent of relative energy dissipation on
block ramps depends on the dimensionless parameters of yc =L and
yc =d50 , along with bed slope S. Thus, in this section, the effects of
these parameters on energy dissipation were investigated applying
the first set of experimental data (Table 3). Fig. 2 depicts the varia-
tion of ΔEr with yc =L for different ramp slopes for various material
sizes. In addition, the energy dissipation over the smooth-bed ramp
in comparison with block ramps with the same slope is also illus-
trated in Fig. 2. The results show that energy dissipation grows with
an increase in relative roughness. On the other hand, the relative
energy dissipation diminishes with an increase in the yc =L ratio,
which means that for a ramp with the same length and roughness
size, as the flow discharge rises, the relative submergence in-
creases. This suggests that the relationship between energy loss and
flow rate is inversely proportional. Comparison of smooth-bed
and rough-bed ramps demonstrates that the energy dissipation of a
rough-bed ramp is 0.16–3.2 times higher than that of a correspond-
ing smooth-bed ramp.
Fig. 3 shows the variation of relative energy dissipation with
yc =L for different roughness sizes with five different ramp slopes.
It is clear that relative energy dissipation grows with an increase
in the ramp slope. This means that at constant values of discharge
and ramp length, the dissipation is directly proportional to the
ramp slope, and for constant values of discharge and ramp slope,
it rises as the ramp length increases. This result agrees with the
findings of Ahmad and Srisvastava (2014), although it is contrary
to the results of Pagliara and Chiavaccini (2006a). The reason for
such disagreement could be attributed to use of different dimen-
sionless numbers in the data analysis. In the study by Pagliara and
Chiavaccini (2006a), the ratio yc =P (P = height of the block ramp)
was considered as the dimensionless number where P depends
on S and can vary as block ramp slopes changes; thus the range
ð7Þ
of energy dissipation observed on the horizontal axis is not the
same.
This can be clarified by an example. Fig. 4 reveals the energy
dissipation in smooth and rough ramps (with a material size of
1.3 cm) examined in this study versus the dimensionless number
selected by Pagliara and Chiavaccini (2006a) (yc =P). The results

© ASCE 04019033-4 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. (a) Section view of laboratory flume; (b) plane view of the laboratory flume; (c) details of the block ramp with hydraulic and geometrical
parameters; and (d) downstream view of the block ramp.

indicated that the conclusion presented by Pagliara and Chiavaccini where correlation coefficient (R2 ) root-mean square error (RMSE),
(2006a) can be true if the dimensionless ratio yc =P is used. Ac- and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), were found to be
cording to Fig. 3, if the ratio yc =L (as in this study) is applied 0.92, 0.032, and 0.084, respectively.
instead of dimensionless number yc =P, the energy-dissipation Using the GEP model for the effective dimensionless parameters
values will be in the same range corresponding to the horizontal on energy dissipation in rough-bed ramps in Eq. (4), Eq. (9) was
axis for a slope with the same length. Therefore, use of yc =L will developed for estimation of the energy dissipation on block ramps
cause the relative energy dissipation to grow with an increase in the as follows:
ramp slope.

yc

6.14 yc yc yc
L
ΔEr ¼ S þ 2.25 − 0.30 ð9Þ
Derivation of Energy-Dissipation Relation Using GEP L L d50
This section describes the energy dissipation modeled using the
GEP approach. The GEP model was calibrated using the first set where the correlation coefficient R2 is 0.93, RMSE is 0.037, and
of collected experimental data. The optimal relationship between MAPE is 0.044.
dimensionless parameters has been shown in Eq. (5) for calculation The GEP formulations proposed in Eqs. (8) and (9) are valid for
of the relative energy dissipation, where ΔEr , in smooth-bed dimensionless parameters ranging between minimum and maxi-
ramps, is given in Eq. (8) mum values reported in Table 1.
Fig. 5 compares the calculated energy dissipations by Eqs. (8)


 and (9) versus the measured values in smooth-bed and rough-bed
y y
ΔEr ¼ exp −49.06 c þ S þ S2 1 − 35.54 c ð8Þ ramps, respectively. This figure confirms agreement between the
L L calculated energy dissipation and measured values for both models

© ASCE 04019033-5 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Variation of ΔEr versus yc =L for different ramp slopes: (a) S ¼ 1V∶4H; (b) S ¼ 1V∶5H; (c) S ¼ 1V∶8H; and (d) S ¼ 1V∶12H.

of smooth-bed and rough-bed ramps with an error line equal to
15% and 10%, respectively.
Verification of Developed Relationships
This section describes two sets of data that were used to verify the
derived relationships. The first set of data evaluates the block
ramp relationship based on the experimental data of Ahmad and
Srisvastava (2014). They carried out tests on semifield block ramps
with three different slopes (1V∶9.87H, 1V∶6H, and 1V∶3H) using
large-scale boulders on a 0.83-m-wide rectangular ramp. The
experiments were performed for nine gradations of the boulders
with an average diameter (d50 ) between 64.0 and 133.8 mm.
The height of the ramps (P) was constant and equal to 0.7 m, and
three different ramp lengths (L) equal to 6.21, 4.2, and 2.1 m were
applied.
Similar to the classification provided by Bathurst (1978) as well
as Bathurst et al. (1981) based on yu =d85 (yu is the uniform flow
depth), Pagliara and Chiavaccini (2006a), based on the ratio of
yc =d50 , classified block ramp roughness into three different groups
of small-scale roughness (SR), intermediate-scale roughness (IR),
and large-scale roughness (LR). Fig. 6(a) shows that the first set of
data collected in this study, which contained all three groups (22%
SR, 64% IR, and 14% LR), as well as the data from Ahmad and
Srisvastava (2014) fall in the range of a large-scale roughness
group. Fig. 6(b) illustrates that the agreement between the first
set of smooth-bed ramp data and data calculated using Eq. (1)
is within 35%. Fig. 6(c) indicates the precision of Eq. (1) for pre-
dicting the energy dissipation on block ramps based on the first set
of data collected in this study and the data from Ahmad and
Srisvastava (2014). The accuracy of prediction of the block ramp
energy-dissipation relationship developed in this study was also evalu-
ated based on the experimental data from Ahmad and Srisvastava
(2014). The results revealed that Eq. (8) developed here more accu-
rately predicted the data of Ahmad and Srisvastava (2014).
Furthermore, to better evaluate the developed models for
smooth-bed and rough-bed ramps, a second set of experiments was
conducted with new geometry and hydraulic conditions [Table 3
and Fig. 7(a)]. For this purpose, the developed Eqs. (8) and (9) were
validated using the experimental tests that were not involved in
the training step. According to Fig. 7(b), similar to the first set of
experimental data, the second set of rough-bed ramp data was

© ASCE 04019033-6 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Variation of ΔEr versus yc =L for different roughness sizes: (a) smooth bed; (b) d50 ¼ 11 mm; (c) d50 ¼ 14 mm; and (d) d50 ¼ 30 mm.

Fig. 4. Variation of ΔEr versus yc =P for different roughness sizes: (a) smooth-bed ramp; and (b) block ramp.

© ASCE 04019033-7 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Comparison between calculated and measured energy dissipation: (a) smooth-bed ramp; and (b) block ramp.

Fig. 6. (a) Distribution of rough-bed experimental data in triple roughness size categories; (b) comparison between measured and calculated energy
dissipation on a smooth-bed ramp using Eq. (1); and (c) comparison between measured and calculated energy dissipation using Eqs. (1) and (8) from
Ahmad and Srisvastava’s (2014) data and the first set of rough-bed data.

© ASCE 04019033-8 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. (a) Schematic of the second set of experiment; (b) distribution of rough-bed experimental data in triple roughness size categories; and (c and d)
comparison between measured and calculated energy dissipation for smooth-bed and rough-bed ramps, respectively.

Fig. 8. Schematic view of gabionlike ramp with geometry parameters.

distributed across all three categories of rough-bed ramps
(36% SR, 61% IR, and 3% LR). The results of both relationships
for the smooth-bed and rough-bed ramps satisfactorily determined
the dissipation of energy [Figs. 7(c and d)] and can be considered
as valid for the design of smooth and rough-bed ramps energy
dissipaters structures.
Rough-Bed Configuration Efficiency
In addition to hydraulic parameters and geometric characteristics of
the ramp and boulders, the energy dissipation over the block ramp
also depends on configurations of the boulders on the ramp.
Tamagni et al. (2010) classified block ramps into two main classes,
namely block carpet and block cluster, based on morphological and

© ASCE 04019033-9 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

 an increase in the ramp slope. A comparison of interlocked and
clustered blocks ramps indicated that the cluster arrangement pro-
vided 7%–18% more kinetic-energy dissipation.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Vice Chancellor for
Research of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz for providing
financial support to conduct this study (Grant No. 95/3/2/62356).

Notation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A, B, C = coefficients depending on scale roughness of block
ramp base material;
dxx = material size for which xx% of material is finer (mm);
Fig. 9. Gain in energy dissipation of gabionlike ramp relative to the E0 = energy at upstream of ramp (m);
conventional block ramp. E1 = energy at downstream of ramp (m);
f x = functional symbol;
g = acceleration of gravity (m=s2 );
H = upstream water depth (m);
structural aspects. The block carpets are further separated into
L = ramp length (m);
interlocked and dumped blocks.
In this study, the main focus was on an interlocked block P = height of the ramp (m);
ramp. To evaluate the effects of rock configuration on the quan- Q = flow discharge (m3 =s);
tity of energy dissipation and compare the performance of these q = discharge per unit width (m2 =s);
two types of block ramps, an experimental model of a dumped R = Reynolds number;
blocks (gabionlike model) ramp with a slope of 1V∶7H was con- S = ramp slope;
structed. Similar to the common gabion structures, the rough bed v = mean flow velocity upstream of ramp (m=s);
of this type of structure was made of a mesh box (with 7 × 7-mm v1 = velocity at toe (m=s);
mesh) filled with rocks. The box was built such that its height W = channel width (m);
was approximately twice the height of the material with an aver- W = Weber number;
age diameter (d50 ) of 14 mm. A schematic view of the gabionlike yc = critical flow depth (m);
ramp with geometry parameters is displayed in Fig. 8. yu = uniform flow depth (m);
Fig. 9 shows that the gain in energy dissipation of the gabionlike
y1 = flow depth at toe (m);
ramp relative to the block ramp (with material size equal to 14 mm)
decreased with an increase in yc =L. The results indicated that a y2 = downstream conjugate depth (m);
gabionlike ramp was more efficient than the common block ramp ΔE = energy dissipation (E0 − E1 ) (m);
by 7%–18%. With increasing the yc =L, the volume fraction of the ΔEr = relative energy dissipation (ΔE=E0 );
flow passing through the rocks, turbulence, and flow resistance are μ = water viscosity (kg=m · s);
reduced, thereby lowering the gabionlike ramp’s efficiency. In areas υ = water kinematic viscosity (m2 =s);
where large rocks are scarce, the gabion as an environment-friendly ρ = water density (kg=m3 ); and
structure is usually made using smaller rocks and metal mesh. For σ = surface tension (kg · m2 =s2 ).
this reason, this alternative to the block ramp has been proposed.
This arrangement is more practical in nature, although there is a
need for further studies on this topic. References
Ahmad, A., and D. Srisvastava. 2014. “Energy dissipation on block ramp
with large scale roughness.” In Proc., 5th Int. Symp. on Hydraulic
Conclusion Structures: Hydraulic Structures and Society-Engineering Challenges
and Extremes. Barton, Australia: Engineers Australia.
Development of proper design criteria for effective block ramps Ahmad, Z., N. M. Pentappa, and B. Westrich. 2009. “Energy dissipation
as an environmentally friendly river restoration structure was the on block ramps with staggered boulders.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 135 (6):
main purpose of this study. Such a goal was achieved by obtaining 522–526. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000039.
new series of experimental data through conducting two sets of Azamathulla, H. M., C. K. Chang, A. A. Ghani, J. Ariffin, N. A. Zakaria,
smooth-bed and rough-bed surfaces of experimental tests across and Z. Abu Hasan. 2009. “An ANFIS-based approach for predicting
a wide range of variables (different bed slopes, flow discharges, and the bed load for moderately sized rivers.” J. Hydro-Environ. Res.
rough-bed sizes) and applying a GEP soft computing approach to 3 (1): 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2008.10.003.
Azamathulla, H. M., and A. A. Ghani. 2010. “Genetic programming
develop new relations for predicting energy dissipation. The accu-
to predict river pipeline scour.” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 1 (3):
racy of the presented relations was tested using new experimental 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000060.
data and data from other investigators. The results suggested that Barenblatt, G. I. 1987. Dimensional analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
the energy dissipation of a rough ramp was 0.16–3.2 times higher Gordon & Breach Science.
than that of a smooth-bed ramp. It was also found that by using the Bathurst, J. C. 1978. “Flow resistance of large-scale roughness.”
correct dimensionless parameter, the energy dissipation grows with J. Hydraul. Div. 104 (12): 1587–1603.

© ASCE 04019033-10 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033

 Bathurst, J. C., R. M. Li, and D. B. Simons. 1981. “Resistance equation for
large scale roughness.” J. Hydraul. Div. 107 (12): 1593–1613.
Fathi-Moghaddam, M., M. Tavakol Sadrabadi, and M. Rahmanshahi. 2018.
“Numerical simulation of the hydraulic performance of triangular and
trapezoidal gabion weirs in free flow condition.” Flow Meas. Instrum.
62 (Aug): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2018.05.005.
Felder, S., and H. Chanson. 2016. “Simple design criterion for residual en-
ergy on embankment dam stepped spillways.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 142 (4):
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001107.
Ferreira, C. 2001a. “Gene expression programming: A new adaptive
algorithm for solving problems.” Complex Syst. 13 (2): 87–129.
Ferreira, C. 2001b. “Gene expression programming in problem solving.”
In Proc., 6th Online World Conf. on Soft Computing in Industrial
Applications, 635–653. London: Springer.
Ferro, V. 1999. “Evaluating friction factor for gravel bed channel with high
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 12/06/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
boulder concentration.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 125 (7): 771–778. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1999)125:7(771).
Ghare, A. D., R. N. Ingle, P. D. Porey, and S. S. Gokhale. 2010. “Block
ramp design for efficient energy dissipation.” J. Energy Eng. 136 (1):
1–5. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9402(2010)136:1(1).
Giustolisi, O., A. Doglioni, D. A. Savic, and B. W. Webb. 2007. “A multi-
model approach to analysis of environmental phenomena.” Environ.
Modell. Software 22 (5): 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft
.2005.12.026.
Horton, R. E. 1907. “Weir experiments, coefficients, and formulas.”
In Proc., US Geological Survey Water Supply. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Lawrence, D. S. L. 1997. “Macroscale surface roughness and frictional
resistance in overland flow.” Earth Surf. Processes Landforms
22 (4): 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199704)
22:4<365::AID-ESP693>3.0.CO;2-6.
Mohamed, H. 2010. “Flow over gabion weirs.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 136 (8):
573–577. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000215.
Novak, P., and J. Cabelka. 1981. Models in hydraulic engineering. London:
Pitman.
Oertel, M., S. Peterseim, and A. Schlenkhoff. 2011. “Drag coefficients of
boulders on a block ramp due to interaction processes.” J. Hydraul. Res.
49 (3): 372–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2011.565695.
Oertel, M., and A. Schlenkhoff. 2012. “Crossbar block ramps: Flow re-
gimes, energy dissipation, friction factors, and drag forces.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 138 (5): 440–448. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900
.0000522.
Pagliara, S. 2007. “Influence of sediment gradation on scour downstream of
block ramps.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 133 (11): 1241–1248. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2007)133:11(1241).
Pagliara, S., I. Carnacina, and T. Roshni. 2010a. “Air-water flows in
the presence of staggered and row boulders under macroroughness
conditions.” Water Resour. Res. 46 (8): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1029
/2009WR008834.
Pagliara, S., I. Carnacina, and T. Roshni. 2010b. “Self-aeration and friction
over rock chutes in uniform flow condition.” J. Hdraul. Eng. 136 (11):
959–964. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000270.
Pagliara, S., I. Carnacina, and T. Roshni. 2011. “Inception point and air
entrainment on flows under macroroughness conditions.” J. Environ.
© ASCE 04019033-11
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(2): 04019033
Eng. 137 (7): 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870
.0000369.
Pagliara, S., and P. Chiavaccini. 2004. “Stability of reinforced block
ramps.” In Proc., 2004 River flow Int. Conf., 1291–1295. Rotterdam,
Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Pagliara, S., and P. Chiavaccini. 2006a. “Energy dissipation on block
ramps.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 132 (1): 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:1(41).
Pagliara, S., and P. Chiavaccini. 2006b. “Energy dissipation on reinforced
block ramps.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 132 (3): 293. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9437(2006)132:3(293).
Pagliara, S., and P. Chiavaccini. 2006c. “Flow resistance of rock chutes
with protruding boulders.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 132 (6): 545–552. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:6(545).
Pagliara, S., and P. Chiavaccini. 2007. “Failure mechanisms of base and
reinforced block ramps.” J. Hydraul. Res. 45 (3): 407–420. https://doi
.org/10.1080/00221686.2007.9521774.
Pagliara, S., R. Das, and I. Carnacina. 2008a. “Flow resistance in large-
scale roughness condition.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 35 (11): 1285–1293.
https://doi.org/10.1139/L08-068.
Pagliara, S., R. Das, and M. Palermo. 2008b. “Energy dissipation on sub-
merged block ramps.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 134 (4): 527–532. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:4(527).
Pagliara, S., and I. Lotti. 2009. “Surface and sub-surface flow through the
block ramps.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 135 (3): 366–374. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000070.
Pagliara, S., and M. Palermo. 2008. “Scour control downstream of block
ramps.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 134 (9): 1376–1382. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:9(1376).
Pagliara, S., and M. Palermo. 2010. “Influence of tailwater depth and
pile position on scour downstream of block ramps.” J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 1236 (2): 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774
.0000132.
Rice, C. E., K. C. Kadavy, and K. M. Robinson. 1998. “Roughness of loose
rock riprap on steep slopes.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 124 (2): 179–185. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1998)124:2(179).
Shafai Bejestan, M., and G. Kazemi Nasaban. 2011. “Experimental study
on gabion stepped spillway.” In Proc., Experimental Methods in
Hydraulic Research, 267–274. Berlin: Springer.
Stephenson, D. 1979a. “Gabion energy dissipators.” In Q5R3, Proc., 13th
ICOLD Congress, 33–43. Paris: Commission Internationale des Grands
Barrages.
Stephenson, D. 1979b. Rock fill in hydraulic engineering. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Tamagni, S., V. Weitbrecht, and R. M. Boes. 2010. “Design of unstructured
block ramps: A State-of-the-art review.” In Proc., River Flow 2010,
edited by A. Dittrich, K. Koll, J. Aberle and P. Geisenhainer,
729–736. Karlsruhe, Germany: Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau.
Zhang, G., and H. Chanson. 2016. “Hydraulics of the developing flow
region of stepped spillways, I: Physical modelling and boundary layer
development.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 142 (7): 04016015. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001138.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.