Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s11269-010-9706-9
Abstract Barrages are hydraulic structures constructed across rivers to divert flow
into irrigation canals or power generation channels. The most of these structures
are founded on permeable foundation. The optimum cost of these structures is
nonlinear function of factors that cause the seepage forces under the structure. There
is, however, no procedure to ascertain the basic barrage parameters such as depth of
sheet piles or cutoffs and the length and thickness of floor in a costeffective manner.
In this paper, a nonlinear optimization formulation (NLOF), which consists of an
objective function of minimizing total cost, is solved using genetic algorithm (GA).
The mathematical model that represents the subsurface flow is embedded in the
NLOF. The applicability of the approach has been illustrated with a typical example
of barrage profile. The results obtained in this study shows drastic cost savings when
the proposed NLOF is solved using GA than that of using classical optimization
technique and conventional method. A parametric analysis has also been performed
to study the effect of varying soil and hydrological conditions on design parameters
and on over all cost.
Keywords Subsurface flow Hydraulic structures Barrages
Embedded simulation optimization Seepage head
Genetic algorithm based optimization
1 Introduction
Rivers of the Indian subcontinent observe high variability of flow over the year.
Design and construction of diversion head works has been a matter of concern for
hydraulic researchers and field engineers. Barrages are major diversion structures of
R. M. Singh (B)
Department of Civil Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology,
Allahabad 211004, India
e-mail: rajm@mnnit.ac.in
410
R.M. Singh
storage for delivering water for various purposes such as irrigation, water supply,
navigation etc. They store large quantity of water making these projects extremely
costly, worth millions of rupees (Rs.). The cost function is nonlinear, consisting of a
large number of design variables of physical dimensions like lengths, thicknesses as
well as unit cost of concrete and earth work. Optimal design of the barrages is one
of the important issues along with water storage, diversions and flood mitigation.
implements cost optimization through a complex multivariate objective function,
deterministic approach is adopted. Though present work is limited to economic
optimization, the inclusion of terms representing the local population and stake
holders needs in the objective function may be a correct and realistic objective function, with all costs not necessarily expressible in terms of monetary value (Bernier
2003).
Barrage is a gate controlled weir. A barrage and weir are similar structures but
differ in qualitative sense. Barrages offer better control than weirs. However, barrages are costlier than weirs (Modi 1988). The characteristics of surface and subsurface flows are taken into considerations while designing a barrage. The crest level,
downstream floor length, and minimum depths of upstream and downstream sheetpiles/cutoffs are mainly governed by surface flow considerations. However, for a
given surface flow condition the cost of a barrage largely depends upon the depth
of sheet-piles and the length of the floor and its thickness which is governed by
subsurface flow conditions. In fact, change in depth of sheet pile affect the floor
length and uplift pressure distribution beneath the floor, and hence thickness of the
floor. Thus, cost function has nonlinear variation with the variation in depth of sheet
piles. The exit gradient, which is considered the most appropriate criterion to ensure
safety against piping (Khosla et al. 1936) on permeable foundations, exhibits non
linear variation in floor length with variation in depth of down stream sheet pile.
These facts complicate the problem and increase the non linearity of the problem.
However, an optimization problem may be formulated to obtain the optimum
structural dimensions that minimize the cost as well as satisfy the exit gradient
criteria.
Optimization methods have been proved of much importance when used with
simulation modeling and the two approaches when combined give the best results
(Rani and Moreira 2010). The optimization problem for determining an optimal
section for the weirs or barrages normally consists of minimizing the construction
cost, earth work, cost of sheet piling, length of impervious floor etc. (Garg et al.
2002; Swamee et al. 1996). This study makes an attempt to formulate a nonlinear
optimization formulation (NLOF) that minimizes unit cost of concrete work, and
earthwork and searches the barrage dimension satisfying the exit gradient criteria.
The subsurface flow simulation is embedded in the optimization model. The NLOF
is solved using Genetic algorithm (GA). The cost of reinforcement (steel work) is
excluded in this study.
In this paper seepage head is varied within a specified range to incorporate
the flood event in the design deterministically. However, inclusions of probabilistic
analysis like mitigation against flood (Jordaan 2005; Eckert et al. 2008, 2009) and risk
cost optimization (Rasekh et al. 2010) in the design may be better option. However,
it is much more difficult to implement probabilistic analysis with a multivariate
objective function (Amzal et al. 2006) such as discussed in this paper.
411
2 Genetic Algorithm
GA is based on the principles of genetics and natural selection and was originally
proposed by Holland (1975) and further developed by Goldberg (1989). Genetic
algorithms are applicable to a variety of optimization problems that are not well
suited for standard optimization algorithms, including problems in which the objective function is discontinuous, non-differentiable, stochastic, or highly nonlinear
(Haestad et al. 2003). GA manipulates a string of numbers in a manner similar to
how chromosomes are changed in biological evolution. The GA search starts from a
population of many points, rather than starting from just one point. This parallelism
means that the search will not be trapped on local optima (Singh and Datta 2006).
The description of basics of GA is available in literature (Goldberg 1989; De Jong
1975; Passino 2005). The present work utilized a real coded genetic algorithm by
Passino (2005).
Two optimization algorithms certainly differ in convergence speed. When the
problem is non-linear (either objective function or constraints) or multi-modal (having more than one peaks or valleys) it is not likely that two algorithm will converge to
same solution. Different optimization algorithm applied to same problem some may
converge to local optima while better one will able to get the global optima. Traditional classical optimization methods start the search from a single starting point
there for it is likely to stuck into local optima. Genetic algorithm starts the search
from population of points therefore it is likely to get global optima.
(1)
This is well known Laplace equation for seepage of water through porous media.
This equation implicitly assumes that (i) the soil is homogeneous and isotropic;
(ii) the voids are completely filled with water; (iii) no consolidation or expansion
of soil takes place; and (iv) flow is steady and obeys Darcys law. The subsurface
flow under barrages/weirs will mainly be two dimensional, as the width of a river is
so considerable that the subsurface flow at any cross section of the barrage is not
appreciably influenced by any cross-flow from the sides except near the flanks. For
2-dimensional flow, the seepage Eq. 5 may be written as:
2h 2h
+ 2 =0
x2
y
(2)
412
R.M. Singh
geometry (Skutch 1997). The boundary between hydraulic structural surface and
foundation soil represents a potential plane of failure. Uncontrolled seepage may
result in piping through soil subjected to an excessive overall hydraulic pressure
gradient that causes soil particles to be dislodged from the matrix, or boiling of the
subsoil at the exit caused by a local excess pressure gradient. Figure 1 is a schematic
of a barrage in a diversion headworks subjected to seepage.
Stability under a given hydraulic head could in theory be achieved by an almost
limitless combination of vertical and horizontal contact surfaces below the structure
provided that the total length of the resultant seepage path were adequately long
for that head (Leliavsky 1979; Skutch 1997). In practical terms, the designer must
decide on an appropriate balance between the length of the horizontal and vertical
elements. Design practice prevailing in a particular country or region may effectively
dictate the balance. Optimization based on knowledge of local construction costs
would be possible but is rarely attempted. This work is one of such attempts.
For large structures it may be practicable to conduct seepage analysis using:
(i) Flow nets constructed by trial and error or graphical methods; (ii) Electrical
analogues; (iii) Mathematical solutions of the Laplace Eq. 6. Many researchers
(Parsons 1929; Terzaghi 1929; Khosla 1930, 1932; Harza 1935; Lane 1935; Garg et al.
2002) stated that problem of steady-state subsurface flow can be represented by the
Laplace equation. However, simplified and empirical method presented by Blighs
creep theory and Lane theory (Varshney et al. 1988) are commonly used in the routine design of low to medium head structures. Lanes Weighted Creep Theory, and
Khoslas Method of Independent Variables, is most commonly adopted (Varshney
et al. 1988) methods.
Khosla et al. (1936) used method of independent variables based on SchwarzChristoffel transformation to solve the Laplace Eq. 6 which represent seepage
through the subsurface media under a hydraulic structure. A composite structure
is split up into a number of simple standard forms (Fig. 3) each of which has a known
solution. The uplift pressures at key points corresponding to each elementary form
are calculated on the assumption that each form exists independently. These key
points are junction points of sheet piles with the impervious concrete floor. The various forms are superposed and corrections to the pressures are made to allow for the
interaction of each form with the others. An explicit check is made for the stability
413
of the soil at the exit from the structure (exit gradient). Appropriate factors of safety
to ensure stability in different types of soil are incorporated in the safe exit gradients
determined by Khosla et al. (1936). The residual heads between key points are assumed to vary linearly. From literature it has been established that solution based on
analytical solution by Khoslas with various corrections for actual profiles are comparable with that of numerical solution based on finite element methods (Garg et al.
2002).
Solutions of these simple profiles have been obtained in terms of proportion of
head H at key points represented by . The proportion of head at any key point C
is thus HC /H. Here, H is the seepage head (difference between head water and tail
water elevations), and HC is the residual head at C and represent uplift pressure head
at C. Solutions of the standard forms as shown in Fig. 2 are discussed as follows:
For location of sheet pile (cutoff wall) at upstream end,
1
2
C = cos1
(3)
D1 =
1
cos1
(4)
D2 =
where =
1
2
1
cos1
1 + 1 + 2 ; and =
L
d2
(5)
(6)
414
R.M. Singh
For location of sheet pile anywhere between upstream and down stream
1
1 1 1
C1 = cos
E1 =
1
cos1
1 + 1
(7)
(8)
1
(9)
where 1 = 12
1 + 1 2 1 + 2 2 ; 2 = 12
1 + 1 2 + 1 + 2 2 ; and 1 = bd ;
D =
2 =
1
cos1
Lb
d
(11)
= E
E D21
d2
tmin + 0.19
DE
b
DE + dE
L
(13)
415
h4
3 4
2
l23
1
d1
C l12
y16
l34
l14
y36
l67
l45
h7
7
E
d2
l56
L
Fig. 3 Schematic of a barrage profile and parameters utilized in problem formulation and performance evaluation
d1 < h1 + t; tmin = minimum thickness of the concrete floor in the upstream; and t =
actual thickness of the concrete floor in the downstream.
The residual heads between key points C and E are assumed to vary linearly.
Hence, the corrected residual head proportion at any distance x from the downstream end can be written as:
C E )
x = E
+
x
(14)
L
3.4 Exit Gradient
An explicit check is for the stability of the hydraulic structure for soil at the exit is
devised by Khosla [2] in the from of exit gradient. The exit gradient for the simple
profile as in Fig. 2b is given by Khosla [2] as follows:
GE =
H 1
d2
(15)
416
R.M. Singh
Subject to
SEG
d2 H
(16)
(17)
Ll L Lu
(18)
dl1 d1 d1u
(19)
dl2 d2 d2u
(20)
L, d1 , d2 0
(21)
where fc is objective function represents total cost of barrage per unit width (Rs/m),
and is function of floor length (L), upstream sheet pile depth (d2 ) and downstream
sheet pile depth (d2 ); f1 is total volume of concrete in the floor per unit width for
a given barrage profile and c1 is cost of concrete floor (Rs/m3 ); f2 is the depth of
upstream sheet pile below the concrete floor and c2 is the cost of upstream sheet
pile including driving (Rs/m2 ); f3 is the depth of downstream sheet pile below the
concrete floor and c3 is the cost of downstream sheet pile including driving (Rs/m2 );
f4 is the volume of soil excavated per unit width for laying concrete floor and c4 is cost
of excavation including dewatering (Rs/m3 ); f5 is the volume of soil required in filling
per unit width and c5 is cost of earth filling (Rs/m3 ); SEG is safe exit gradient for a
given soil formation on which the hydraulic structure isconstructed and
is function
1
2
of downstream depth and the length of the floor; = 2 1 + 1 + ; = dL2 ; L is
total length of the floor; H is the seepage head; d1 is the upstream sheet pile depth;
417
d2 is downstream sheet pile depth; Ll , d1l , and d2l is lower bound on L, d1 and d2
respectively; Lu , d1u , d2u are upper bound on L, d1 and d2 respectively.
The constraint Eq. 17 may be written as follows after substituting the value of :
H
L d2 2
d2 (SGE)
2
1
1/2
1
(22)
In the optimization formulation, for a give barrage profile and seepage head H, f1
is computed by estimating thickness at different key locations of the floor using
Khoslas method, and hence nonlinear function of length of floor (L), upstream sheet
pile depth (d1 ) and downstream sheet pile depth (d2 ). Similarly f4 , and f5 is nonlinear.
The constraint represented by Eq. 17 is also nonlinear function of length of the floor
and downstream sheet pile depth (d2 ). Thus both objective function and constraint
are nonlinear; make the problem in the category of nonlinear optimization program
(NLOP) formulation, which are inherently complex.
The Eq. 22 explicitly incorporates subsurface flow under the barrages. The
functional parameters f1 to f5 are affected by subsurface flow, and hence effect of subsurface flow is implicitly incorporated in the optimization model. The optimization
formulation embedded with subsurface flow behavior under the barrages is solved
using genetic algorithm to obtain the optimal design parameters.
For a given geometry of a barrage and seepage head H, the optimization model
functional parameters f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 and f5 may be characterized using the procedure
outlined here. A typical barrage profile shown in Fig. 3 is considered for illustration
of the procedure. Intermediate sheet-piles are not effective in reducing the uplift
pressures and only add to the cost of in reducing the uplift pressures and only add to
the cost of the barrage. In present work, no intermediate sheet piles are considered.
4.2 Characterizing f1
Quantity of concrete depends upon the length and the thickness of the concrete floor.
Quantity of concrete upstream of the ponding by barrage gate i.e. portion between
points 1 and 4 (Fig. 3), only a nominal thickness of concrete is required because the
residual head (uplift pressure) is balanced by the weight of water above the floor. If
minimum thickness is denoted by tmin , the volume of concrete per unit width between
points 1 and 4 is given as:
Q14 = (L (l45 + l56 + l67 )) tmin
(23)
The quantity of concrete downstream of the ponding by gate i.e. portion between
4 and 5 (Fig. 3) is estimated by finding the actual thickness depending upon residual
heads at points 4, 5, 6, and 7. If h4 and h7 represent residual head at point 4 and 7
respectively calculated using Eqs. 16 and 17, as shown in Fig. 3, the residual head at
other points may be calculated using Eq. 18 assuming linear variation. The line shown
as dotted in Fig. 3, thus represent hydraulic gradient line (HGL), the ordinate of
which at any point gives residual head at that point. Thus, h4, h5 , h6 , and h7 represent
residual head at locations 4, 5, 6, and 7. If hx is ordinate of HGL from the top of the
418
R.M. Singh
floor at distance x from the downstream end, then thickness (t) required to balance
may be given by
t=
hx
G1
(24)
where G is the specific gravity of the material of the floor. For concrete, it is taken
as 2.42.
Depending upon the magnitude of the ordinates, the thickness, and hence volume
of the concrete varies. For a particular profile of barrage, optimization model require
quantity of concrete to be estimated. Initially, a minimum thickness is provided
between locations 4 to 7, and volume of concrete corresponding to minimum
thickness is represented as Qmin . Depending upon magnitude of ordinates of HGL at
locations 4, 5, 6 and 7, additional thickness is provided. The volume of concrete after
providing additional thickness over the minimum thickness is calculated separately
between the portions 4 and 5, 5 and 6, and 6 and 7 and represented as Q45 , Q56 ,
and Q67 respectively. The following procedure step by step is utilized to estimate the
quantity of concrete between points 4 to 7. The procedure is similar to Garg et al.
(2002).
(i) The volume of concrete per unit width for the minimum thickness is estimated as:
Qmin = (l45 + l56 + l67 ) tmin
(25)
(ii) Consider portion between location 4 and 5. Assume HGL ordinate at locations
4 and 5 as h4 and h5 respectively. Depending on the magnitude of h4 and h5,
the quantity of concrete may be calculated as follows:
a. If h4 > 0 and h5 < = 0; then
h42
l45 ;
= 0.5
h4 + |h5 |
Q45
(26)
(27)
(28)
(v) For small scour depths (assumed up to 3 m), sometimes concrete cutoffs
are provided. In that case quantity of concrete in upstream and downstream
cutoffs represented as Qcutoff(u/s) and Qcutoff(d/s) have to be included. These
quantities estimated as follows:
For d1 < = 3.0 m,
Qcutoff(u/s) = d1 tmin
(29)
419
(30)
(31)
Q47
+ Qcutoff(u/s) + Qcutoff(d/s)
(G 1)
(32)
(vii) Thus,
f1 = QC = L.tmin +
b b1
x1
c c1
x2 a a1 x3
x4
l14
y1 y
3
l67
l45
l56
L
420
R.M. Singh
a Decision
variables to be
optimized
Physical parameters
Values (meters)
l12
l23
l34
l45
l56
l67
La
Y16
Y36
H
d1a
d2a
67.77
6.70
1.0
1.0
9.90
19.0
105.37
1.65
3.15
7.12
5.45
5.90
respectively. From the Figs. 3 and 4, the volume of soil excavated per unit width
is estimated by Garg et al. (2002):
f4 = QEarth Excavation = L.tmin +
y2
(Q45 + Q56 + Q67)
+ y1 l67 + 0.5 1 l56
y3
(G 1)
x4
x3
(33)
x2
g (x) x
(34)
x2
In present work, for performance evaluations, value of cost of concreting, c1 ,is taken
as Rs 986.0/m3; cost of sheet-piling including driving, c1 , is taken as Rs1510.0/m2;
cost of excavation and dewatering, c3 , is taken as Rs 35.60/m3; cost of earth filling,
c4 , ia taken as Rs 11.0/m3; and minimum thickness of floor is 1.0 m by conventional
method. The dimensions of the barrage profile as shown in Fig. 3 are presented in
Table 1.
421
Optimal
parameters
obtained
Yes
Termination
criteria met
No
variables are length of the weir (L), upstream (u/s) sheet-pile depth (d1 ), and downstream (d/s) sheet-pile depth (d2 ). GA starts with representation of these variables
by individual chromosomes of specified number or genes. Each number slot in a
chromosome is called a gene. A six-digit chromosome (1 to 9 digit as one of six genes)
is selected based on Passino [11] guidelines. GA starts with randomly generated
population of solution vector parameters (L, d1 , d2 ). Each of these parameters was
decoded into decimal valued numbers. Employing Khoslas method to incorporate
under seepage, f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 , and f5 were estimated. Using objective function value
and constraints, fitness of parameters in whole population were found out. From
this population, new population was created using genetic operators (selection,
crossover, and mutation). Thus, from initial population, next generation of new
population was completed.
The process of going into new generation continues until the fitness of the population converged or termination criteria satisfied. Elitism was employed to preserve
and carry over the most fit individual in each generation to the next generation without being modified in any way by the genetic operators. The population converged
at crossover rate of 0.5, mutation rate of 0.05, the population size is 40 and the
422
R.M. Singh
number of generations is 100. The average fitness, best fitness and worst fitness in
100 generations are also plotted and shown in Fig. 6.
5.2 Solution by Classical Optimization
The optimization model and the functional parameters embedded in the optimization model are solved using non-linear constrained optimization function FMINCON of MATLAB (2007). The optimization model represented by Eqs. 1622 and
the functional parameters embedded in the optimization model and represented
through Eqs. 2334 and the functional parameters embedded in the optimization
model are solved using non-linear constrained optimization function FMINCON
of MATLAB.
The function FMINCON finds a constrained minimum of a function of several
variables. FMINCON attempts to solve optimization problems of the form:
minF (X)
subject to :
(35)
(36)
(37)
LB <= X <= UB lower and upper bounds
(38)
(39)
423
Table 2 GA and conventional methodology based results with safe exit gradient equal to 1/8 and
minimum thickness of floor as 1 m
Design method
U/S sheet
pile d1 (m)
D/S sheet
pile d2 (m)
Floor length
L (m)
Cost
(Rs/m)
Cost reduction
by GA (%)
Conventional method
GA
5.45
3.0
5.90
9.20
105.37
61.02
133,605.0
111,250.0
16.73
6 Performance Evaluation
Performance of the developed methodology is evaluated by solving a typical barrage
profile. Till the mid nineteenth century in India, weirs and barrages have been
designed and constructed on the basis of experience using the technology available at
that period of time. Some of them were based on Blighs creep theory, which proved
to be unsafe and uneconomical. Comparison of the parameters of these structures
with the proposed approach is, thus, not justified. Therefore, a typical profile, a
spillway portion of a barrage as shown in Fig. 3 is chosen for illustrating the proposed
approach using dimensions values of parameters as given in Table 1. The proposed
approach shown in Fig. 5 is implemented in steps as discussed in the previous section
of solution procedure of optimization formulation using genetic algorithm.
d1
d2
Cost (Rs)
1/8
1/7
1/6
1/5
1/4
3.0
9.16
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.20
9.81
7.65
5.59
3.74
61.02
40.36
40.0
40.0
40.0
111,250.0
104,340.0
91,408.0
82,626.0
73,656.0
424
R.M. Singh
120000
Cost
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0.13
0.14
0.17
0.20
0.25
Exit gradient
120000
Optimum Costs (Rs)
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
425
Table 4 GA and classical optimization based results with safe exit gradient equal to1/7 and variable
minimum floor thickness
GA
Classical optimization
d1
d2
Cost (Rs/m) d1
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
9.16
3.0
3.0
3.0
d2
5.45 10.42
51.61 111,418.0
5.45 8.58
67.55 103,549.0
5.45 6.97 91,251.0
87.10
5.45 5.90
105.37 72,651.0
6.4
7.3
8.2
7.5
t minimum thickness of floor in meter, d1 U/S sheet pile in meter, d2 D/S sheet pile in meter, L floor
length in meter
are presented in Table 3. It can be noted from Table 3 that as SEG increases for a
particular assumed minimum thickness the cost reduces. Thus a barrage founded on
sand (high SEG) will cost less than that founded on silt or clay. The results are also
plotted in Fig. 7.
7.2 Parametric Analysis to Illustrate Effect of Minimum Assumed Thickness
A nominal floor thickness is required on the upstream side of the barrages as the
uplift pressures on the upstream side are counterbalanced by the weight of standing
water. However, the downstream thickness needs to be evaluated starting with the
nominal thickness for the whole of the floor length. The results of the analysis for
a range of assumed minimum thickness from 1.0 m to 0.25 m are plotted in Fig. 8.
The permissible exit gradient is taken as 1/7 for the considered barrage profile. The
results with relevant details are shown in Table 4. The decrease in assumed nominal
floor thickness resulted in a increase in total floor length and a decrease in depth
of the downstream sheet pile without appreciably affecting the upstream sheet-pile
depth. This resulted in a substantial decrease in the total cost of the barrage, as shown
in Table 4 and plotted in Fig. 8. Figure 9 shows the increase in average d/s thickness
with increase in the assumed nominal floor thickness. However, a minimum possible
thickness from practical considerations should be provided.
Results in Table 4 indicate that cost reduction range using GA varies from 6 to 8%
than those of using classical optimization technique which is significant for usually
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
426
R.M. Singh
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
6.81
15.00
Average Thickness (d/s)
10.00
5.00
0.00
6.81
9.74
12.50
D/S Sheet pile depth (m)
12.00
11.50
11.00
10.50
10.00
9.50
6.81
9.74
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
6.81
427
high cost of barrages. It is evident from the Table 4 that cost decreases with decrease
in minimum thickness assumptions for whole of the floor length. It also can be noted
that for identical upstream sheet pile depth and slight increase in downstream sheet
pile depth (increase by 0.61 m), even with more than 16% lesser total floor length the
total cost for minimum floor thickness of 0.5 m increased by almost 20% than those
with minimum thickness of 0.25. The cost per unit is of course higher for sheet pile
than that of unit rate of concrete. The increase in cost is mainly due to increase in
average thickness of d/s length of barrage.
8 Conclusions
The illustrated application establishes the potential applicability of the genetic algorithm based subsurface flow embedded methodology. The GA based optimization
model is embedded with the subsurface flow simulation to solve the nonlinear objective function of minimizing cost subject to nonlinear constraints. The results obtained
by solution of the GA based optimization formulation provide the optimal barrage
parameters in terms of depth of up streams and down streams sheet-piles/cutoffs,
length and thickness of floor, and reduces the over all costs. The optimization
approach is capable of evolving a cost effective design of a barrage than that obtained
by conventional method.
A parametric analysis was performed to ascertain relative sensitiveness of barrage
parameters with different soil types and different hydrological conditions. Soil types
and hydrological conditions are incorporated in the model by safe exit gradient and
seepage heads respectively. Safe exit gradients and seepage heads are varied within
428
R.M. Singh
a wide range to represent favorable as well as adverse design scenarios. The conclusions from this study may be summarized as follows:
1. A barrage founded on silt or silty clay is costlier than those of founded on sandy
soils for the same head.
2. The depth of the upstream sheet pile is the least sensitive to the value of SGE or
the seepage head compared to downstream sheet pile and/or total floor length.
3. The minimum assumed floor thickness affects design parameters, and hence
overall cost of the barrage. A nominal value from practical considerations is
imperative to reduce the over all cost of the barrage.
4. As the seepage head increases, the depth of the downstream sheet-pile and floor
length both increase. When the downstream sheet-pile attains to its upper bound,
the optimal floor length increases rapidly to satisfy the SGE, and results in rapid
increase in cost. Too large downstream sheet-pile may result in excessive ponding
at the barrage. Therefore, upper bounds on sheet pile depth should be set to
restrict the extent of ponding at the barrage, and at the same time it should not
excessively increase the over all cost.
5. GA based subsurface flow embedded model is able to evolve more cost effective
design of barrage profile than those of classical optimization technique for the
same problem.
The limited performance evaluation results show the potential applicability of the
GA based methodology for optimizing the barrage profiles dimensions to obtain
optimal costs. Evaluation of the developed methodology on larger problems considering for both surface and subsurface flows will further increase the applicability of
the methodology.
The study suggests that the GA based optimization methodology as described in
this study is potentially capable to develop a costeffective design of a barrage. The
GA based optimization approach is equally valid for optimal design of other major
hydraulic structures, such as canal drops and regulators.
References
Amzal B, Bois FY, Parent E, Robert CP (2006) Bayesian-optimal design via interacting particle
systems. J Am Stat Assoc 101(474):773785
Bernier J (2003) Dcisions et comportements des dcideurs face au risque. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):
301316
De Jong KA (1975) An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. Ph.D.
dissertation, Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor
Eckert N, Parent E, Faug T, Naaim M (2008) Optimal design under uncertainty of a passive defense
structure against snow avalanches: from a general Bayesian framework to a simple analytical
model. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:10671081
Eckert N, Parent E, Faug T, Naaim M (2009) Bayesian optimal design of an avalanche dam using a
multivariate numerical avalanche model. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23:11231141
Garg NK, Bhagat SK, Asthana BN (2002) Optimal barrage design based on subsurface flow considerations. J Irrig Drain Eng 128(4):253263
Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston
Haestad M, Walski TM, Chase DV, Savic DA, Grayman W, Beckwith S, Koelle E (2003) Advanced
water distribution modeling and management. Haestad Press, Waterbury, pp 673677
Harza LF (1935) Uplift and seepage under dams on sand. Paper No. 1920, Trans. ASCE
429
Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor
Jordaan I (2005) Decisions under uncertainty. Pobabilistic Analysis for Engineering Decisions.
Cambridge University Press
Khosla AN (1930) Stability of weirs and canal works: an application of the new theory of hydraulic
gradient. Paper No. 140, Punjab Engineering Congress, Punjab, India
Khosla AN (1932) Pressure pipe observations at Panjnad Weir. Paper No. 160, Punjab Engineering
Congress, Punjab, India
Khosla AN, Bose NK, Taylor EM (1936) Design of weirs on permeable foundations. CBIP Publication No. 12, Central Board of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi
Lane EW (1935) Security from under seepage. Paper No. 1919, Trans ASCE
Leliavsky S (1979) Irrigation engineering: canals and barrages. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi
Modi PN (1988) Irrigation water resources and water power engineering. Standard Book House,
New Delhi
Parsons HD (1929) Hydraulic uplift in previous soils. Paper No.1713, Trans. ASCE
Passino KM (2005) Biomimicry for optimization, control, and automation. Springer, London
Rani D, Moreira MM (2010) Simulationoptimization modeling: a survey and potential application
in reservoir systems operation. Water Resour Manage 24:11071138
Rasekh A, Afshar A, Afshar MH (2010) Risk-cost optimization of hydraulic structures: methodology
and case study. Water Resour Manag. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9582-3
Singh RM, Datta B (2006) Identification of unknown groundwater pollution sources using genetic
algorithm based linked simulation optimization approach. J Hydrol Eng 11(2):101109
Skutch J (1997) Minor irrigation design DROPdesign manual hydraulic analysis and design of
energy-dissipating structures. TDR Project R 5830, Report OD/TN 86
Swamee PK, Mishra GC, Salem Adel AS (1996) Optimal design of sloping weir. J Irrig Drain Eng
122(4):248255
Terzaghi C (1929) Effect of minor geological details on the safety of dams. Tech. Publication No.
215. Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, US
Varshney RS, Gupta SC, Gupta RL (1988) Theory and design of irrigation structures. Nem Chand
and Bros., Roorkee