It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Sediment transport is a normal phenomenon in rivers and streams, contributing significantly to ecosystem production and preservation by replenishing vital nutrients and preserving aquatic life’s natural habitats. Thus, sediment transport prediction through modeling is crucial for predicting flood events, tracking coastal erosion, planning for water supplies, and managing irrigation. The predictability of process-driven models may encounter various restrictions throughout the validation process. Given that data-driven models work on the assumption that the underlying physical process is not requisite, this opens up the avenue for AI-based model as alternative modeling. However, AI-based models, such as ANN and SVM, face problems, such as long-term dependency, which require alternative dynamic procedures. Since their performance as universal function approximation depends on their compatibility with the nature of the problem itself, this study investigated several distinct AI-based models, such as long short-term memory (LSTM), artificial neural network (ANN), and support vector machine (SVM), in predicting sediment transport in the Johor river. The collected historical daily sediment transport data from January 1, 2008, to December 01, 2018, through autocorrelation function, were used as input for the model. The statistical results showed that, despite their ability (deep learning and machine learning) to provide sediment predictions based on historical input datasets, machine learning, such as ANN, might be more prone to overfitting or being trapped in a local optimum than deep learning, evidenced by the worse in all metrics score. With RMSE = 11.395, MAE = 18.094, and R2 = 0.914, LSTM outperformed other models in the comparison.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Komar University of Science and Technology, Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Sulaimany, Iraq (GRID:grid.472327.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 5895 5512)
2 Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Department of Civil Engineering, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Kajang, Malaysia (GRID:grid.412261.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1798 283X)
3 Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Dam Safety Management & Engineering Group, Institute of Energy Infrastructure and Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Kajang, Malaysia (GRID:grid.484611.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1798 3541)
4 United Arab Emirates University, National Water and Energy Center, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates (GRID:grid.43519.3a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2193 6666); United Arab Emirates University, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates (GRID:grid.43519.3a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2193 6666)
5 University of Malaya, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (GRID:grid.10347.31) (ISNI:0000 0001 2308 5949)