Accepted Manuscript

Monitoring models for base flow effect and daily variation of dam seepage elements
considering time lag effect

Shao-wei Wang, Ying-li Xu, Chong-shi Gu, Teng-fei Bao

PII: S1674-2370(18)30099-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2018.12.004
Reference: WSE 159

To appear in: Water Science and Engineering

Received Date: 16 December 2017

Accepted Date: 23 September 2018

Please cite this article as: Wang, S.-w., Xu, Y.-l., Gu, C.-s., Bao, T.-f., Monitoring models for base flow
effect and daily variation of dam seepage elements considering time lag effect, Water Science and
Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2018.12.004.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Monitoring models for base flow effect and daily variation of
dam seepage elements considering time lag effect
Shao-wei Wang a, b, *, Ying-li Xu a, Chong-shi Gu b, Teng-fei Bao b
a
School of Environmental and Safety Engineering, Changzhou University, Changzhou 213164, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
Received 16 December 2017; accepted 23 September 2018
Available online
Abstract

PT
Affected by external environmental factors and evolution of dam performance, dam seepage behavior shows nonlinear time-varying
characteristics. In this study, to predict and evaluate the long-term development trend and short-term fluctuation of the dam seepage behavior,
two monitoring models were developed, one for the base flow effect and one for daily variation of dam seepage elements. In the first model,

RI
to avoid the influence of the time lag effect on the evaluation of seepage variation with the time effect component of seepage elements, the
base values of the seepage element and the reservoir water level were extracted using the wavelet multi-resolution analysis method, and the
time effect component was separated by the established base flow effect monitoring model. For the development of the daily variation

SC
monitoring model for dam seepage elements, all the previous factors, of which the measured time series prior to the dam seepage element
monitoring time may have certain influence on the monitored results, were considered. Those factors that were positively correlated with the
analyzed seepage element were initially considered to be the support vector machine (SVM) model input factors, and then the SVM kernel
function-based sensitivity analysis was performed to optimize the input factor set and establish the optimized daily variation SVM model.
The efficiency and rationality of the two models were verified by case studies of the water level of two piezometric tubes buried under the

U
slope of a concrete gravity dam. Sensitivity analysis of the optimized SVM model shows that the influences of the daily variation of the
upstream reservoir water level and rainfall on the daily variation of piezometric tube water level are processes subject to a normal
AN
distribution.

Keywords: Dam seepage monitoring model; Time lag effect; Support vector machine (SVM); Sensitivity analysis；Base flow; Daily variation;
Piezometric tube water level
M

1. Introduction
D

Dam safety is significantly influenced by the seepage behavior of a dam’s body, foundation, and bank slope. If an
abnormal seepage problem is not detected and treated in a timely manner, it will probably result in seepage failure or
TE

even dam failure, as in the case of the failure of the Gouhou Concrete-faced Rockfill Dam in China (Li, 1994; Malkawi
and Al-Sheriadeh, 2000). Therefore, it is important to monitor and predict dam seepage behavior. The frequently used
monitoring methods at present mainly include piezometric tubes, osmometers, measurement weirs, and distributed
EP

optical fibers. The dam seepage behavior is directly reflected by monitored seepage elements, such as the piezometric
tube water level, seepage discharge, seepage pressure, and water clarity (Fu et al., 2014; Su et al., 2015a; Alonso and
Pinyol, 2016). Considering the structural performance of a dam, the prediction and interpretation of these large sets of
C

available data are very important for dam health monitoring, and are mainly based on mathematical or physical models
(Ranković et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2016).
AC

The upstream reservoir water level and rainfall are the main factors influencing dam seepage, and previous research
results have indicated that the influences of these two factors show a strong time lag effect. Specifically, the change of
the piezometric tube water level lags behind the change of the reservoir water level and rainfall (Liu and Sun, 2011). To
solve this problem, Gu and Wu (2006) established statistical models in different forms for dam seepage monitoring, and
the previous segmental average values and equivalent values of the upstream reservoir water level and rainfall were used
as model factors. The average value method is frequently used, combined with multiple linear regression (MLR, in
which the least squares regression and stepwise regression are frequently used), due to its simplicity (Hu and Ma, 2016).
However, the influence of the actual time lag effect on dam seepage gradually increases to a great extent and disappears
later on, and the time lag effect cannot be appropriately reflected by an average process. As for the equivalent value
—————————————
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51709021), and the Open Foundation of the
State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering (Grant No. 2016491111).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shaowei2006nanjing@163.com (Shao-wei Wang)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
method, the time lag effect is mostly considered to follow a normal distribution, and the lag time and influencing time
are the key parameters that need to be accurately determined. To optimize these two parameters, artificial intelligence
algorithms, such as the adaptive linear neuron (Yu et al., 2010) and genetic algorithms (Qiu et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2018),
are frequently used. Wang and Bao (2013) also proposed a daily variation monitoring model for seepage elements using
the previous equivalent incremental value of reservoir water level. Besides the statistical model, an autoregressive
moving average (ARMA) model has also been used to predict dam seepage elements. However, it is incapable of
explaining the abnormal phenomenon in the predicted results (Adamowski and Chan, 2011).
Artificial intelligence algorithms, such as the artificial neural network (ANN) and the support vector machine
(SVM), have been developed in recent years and can be used to establish a nonlinear mapping relationship between the
input and output of a system. The essence of the dam safety monitoring model is to establish relationships between a

PT
monitored dam effect quantity and its factors, which can be respectively used as the output and input variables. Then,
according to the observation data, monitoring models can be established by developing the learning rules between input
and output samples with the artificial intelligence algorithm (Kao and Loh, 2011; Monjezi et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2013;

RI
Mata, 2011). Ranković et al. (2014) developed a nonlinear feedforward neural network (FNN) model to predict the
piezometric tube water level in dams, and this approach shows higher prediction accuracy than the traditional MLR
method. The SVM is based on the minimization principle of structural risk and can effectively solve the

SC
high-dimensional nonlinear problem with small samples; its fitting ability can be optimized by the genetic algorithm
(GA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), etc. Thus, SVM models are frequently used for dam safety monitoring. To
reduce the modeling time without decreasing the prediction accuracy, Su et al. (2015b) conducted sensitivity analysis of

U
SVM model input factors with respect to output factors. The SVM model is very adaptable to the situation in which the
factors of dam effect quantities have a great deal of uncertainty. The aforementioned situation can also be solved through
AN
cooperation between the principal component analysis (PCA) and the SVM, in which the main features of the uncertain
input factors are primarily extracted by PCA before establishing the SVM model (Chen et al., 2013).
In order to accurately evaluate the dam seepage behavior, the piezometric tube water level was used as an example
M

to establish the monitoring models for the base flow effect and daily variation of dam seepage elements, respectively, in
this study. The base flow effect monitoring model was used to separate the time effect component from the monitored
seepage elements, so as to avoid the influence of seepage lag effect. The model can be used to predict and evaluate the
D

long-term development trend of the dam seepage behavior. To monitor the daily variation of dam seepage elements, the
SVM was used to establish the nonlinear mapping relationship between the daily variation of a seepage element and its
TE

factors, and the seepage lag effect-induced uncertainty of the factors was optimized through sensitivity analysis.

2. Time lag effect of monitored dam seepage elements

EP

Due to the water level fluctuation of a reservoir, the dam body and its foundation are in an unsteady seepage state.
The resistance caused by the weak permeability of dam materials leads to a change of water pressure in different parts of
the dam-foundation system lagging behind the fluctuation of the reservoir water level and the infiltration of rainfall. The
relationship between the monitored water level of a piezometric tube embedded behind the impervious curtain and the
C

reservoir water level of the Chencun Arch Dam, with other factors almost remaining the same, is shown in Fig. 1. It can
AC

be seen that, at the same reservoir water level, the monitored piezometric tube water level at the rising stage of the
reservoir water level is lower than that at the dropping stage. This phenomenon is mainly caused by the time lag effect of
unsteady seepage.

Fig. 1. Relationship between upstream reservoir water level and piezometric tube water level of Chencun Arch Dam
To study the mechanism of seepage lag effect, assumptions for a piezometric tube are as follows: (1) the upstream

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
reservoir water level H and the piezometric tube water level h are respectively kept constant for a long time in the steady
seepage state; and (2) the reservoir water level rises or drops by a certain amplitude and then remains constant, while
other environmental variables remain unchanged. Statistical analyses show that the change of the piezometric tube water
level occurs later than that of the reservoir water level, and it takes a longer time for the piezometric tube water level to
reach a steady state, as shown in Fig. 2. During this process, the seepage lag effect is mainly caused by three factors
(Wang and Bao, 2013): (1) the time interval for water pressure transmission induced by water filling into or discharging
from a porous medium, which is the main factor of the seepage lag effect; (2) the time interval induced by monitoring
methods, e.g., for a piezometric tube, a time interval is needed for water to fill into or discharge from its interior, and the
delayed time increases with the size of the tube; and (3) the time interval required for squeezing the air and filling the
porous medium, which mainly occurs in the seepage transition zone.

PT
RI
U SC
Fig. 2. Sketch of seepage lag effect represented by piezometric tube water level
As for the factors of dam seepage elements, monitoring results show that the piezometric tube water level is mainly
AN
influenced by the upstream and downstream reservoir water levels, rainfall, temperature, and time effect, with their
components denoted as hu , hd , hP , hT , and hθ , respectively. To consider the seepage lag effect corresponding to the
upstream reservoir water level and rainfall, the previous segmental average values of these two factors have mostly been
used. Therefore, the traditional hydraulic, precipitation, temperature, and time effect (HPTT) statistical model for
M

piezometric tube water level h is generally as follows (Gu and Wu, 2006):
m1 m2
h = hu + hd + hP + hT + hθ = ∑ aui H i + ad H d + ∑ b j Pj +
D

i =0 j =0
(1)
2
 2πit 2πit 
∑  c1i sin + c2i cos  + k1θ + k2 ln θ
TE

i =1  365 365 
where H i ( i = 0,1,L , m1 ) is the ith previous segmental average value of the upstream reservoir water level;
Pj ( j = 0,1,L , m2 ) is the jth previous segmental average value of rainfall; H d is the downstream water level, monitored
simultaneously with the seepage element; t is the cumulative monitoring time; θ = t 100 ; and aui , ad , b j , c1i , c2i ,
EP

k1 , and k2 , are the regression coefficients.

3. Monitoring model for base flow effect

C

The seepage field of a dam-foundation system continuously changes with the development of environmental factors.
AC

The base flow shows the basic effects of the main factors, the hydraulic pressure and time effect, on dam seepage, and its
development rule can be used to evaluate the performance of the dam seepage prevention and drainage system. Therefore,
to avoid the influences of the reservoir water level change and seepage lag effect, it is necessary to establish a base flow
effect monitoring model, which can be used to estimate the time effect component and the long-term seepage behavior.

3.1. Extraction of base flow effect

Generally, the reservoir water level and piezometric tube water level both fluctuate around certain base values,
which are respectively denoted as H b and hb . Then, for any time, the reservoir water level and piezometric tube water
level can be denoted as H b + ∆H and hb + ∆h , respectively, where ∆H and ∆h are the water level variations with
respect to H b and hb , respectively. However, a seepage element is monitored as a comprehensive value influenced by
different factors. The effect of an individual factor is unknown and can only be separated by mathematical models or
other signal separation methods. In general, each factor has a certain frequency. Therefore, according to the frequency of
a factor and its seepage component, the monitored comprehensive value of the seepage element can be separated in the
3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
frequency domain, and components of different factors can be distinguished by their frequencies (Wang et al., 2018).
Generally, the base flow effect is represented by the separated low-frequency component with a cycle period of more
than one year.
The wavelet multi-resolution analysis is a signal analysis method in the frequency domain, by which a time series
can be decomposed into components of different frequencies, and thus it can be applied to the multi-scale analysis of
seepage elements. The decomposition diagram of the wavelet multi-resolution analysis is shown in Fig. 3. During the
decomposition of a time series, only the low-frequency component obtained in the previous step is decomposed again.
The decomposition of a time series in the wavelet multi-resolution analysis can be expressed as follows:
N
f0 = f1 + d1 = f 2 + d 2 + d1 = L = f N + d N + d N −1 + L + d 2 + d1 = f N + ∑ di (2)
i =1

PT
where f 0 is the original signal; and f i and d i are, respectively, the low- and high-frequency components
decomposed from the low-frequency component f i −1 of the previous step.

RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 3. Decomposition diagram of wavelet multi-resolution analysis

3.2. Base flow effect monitoring model based on wavelet multi-resolution analysis
Of all those dam seepage factors, the environmental temperature and rainfall usually cycle with annual periodicity.
M

However, the variation period of the reservoir water level differs from dam to dam, and it varies from daily regulation to
multi-year regulation, even without obvious periodicity. Therefore, to establish a monitoring model for the base flow
effect of dam seepage, multi-layer wavelet decompositions are first conducted of seepage elements and the reservoir
D

water level. When the frequency of a decomposed low-frequency component of the monitored time series is lower than
that of annual periodicity, the decomposed low-frequency component at this decomposition layer can be determined as
TE

the base value, and thus, the monitoring model for the base flow effect is established.
Based on the frequency characteristic, the base flow of dam seepage is mainly caused by the time effect and the
long-term hydraulic action. Thus, the base flow effect of the piezometric tube water level can be expressed with the
EP

following monitoring model:

hb = ah H b + k1θ + k2 ln θ (3)
where ah is the regression coefficient.
C

4. Daily variation SVM model for dam seepage elements

AC

In engineering practice, monitoring models are used for safety analysis and abnormality mechanism interpretation
of the dam-foundation system. The abnormality is diagnosed based on the variation of monitored variables, for example,
the sudden increase or decrease of the piezometric tube water level usually reveals the failure of the seepage prevention
and drainage system or the blockage of the piezometric tube. The base value of the piezometric tube water level mostly
reflects the overall quality of the seepage prevention and drainage system, rather than the abnormality diagnosis.
Therefore, a monitoring model for the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level with consideration of the time
lag effect needs to be established.
The SVM is based on the statistical learning theory and has a strong nonlinear mapping ability in high dimensional
space. Therefore, the SVM was adopted in this study to establish a nonlinear relationship between the daily variation of a
seepage element and its factors.

4.1. Factors of daily variation of dam seepage elements

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The daily variation of the piezometric tube water level is mainly induced by the variations of reservoir water level,
rainfall, and temperature. Considering that the downstream reservoir water level changes slightly for most dams, its
influence on the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level can be ignored. Therefore, the daily variation of the
piezometric tube water level consists of three parts, as follows:
∆h′ = ∆hu + ∆hP + ∆hT (4)
where ∆h′ , ∆hu , ∆hP , and ∆hT are the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level and its components caused
by the variations of upstream hydraulic pressure, rainfall, and temperature, respectively.
To consider the seepage lag effect, the previous daily variations of the upstream reservoir water level are initially
determined as the hydraulic factors. Thus, the hydraulic component of the daily variation of the piezometric tube water
level can be determined as follows:

PT
m1′
∆hu = ∑ ai ∆H i (5)
i =0

where ∆H i ( i = 0,1,L , m1′ ) is the daily variation of the upstream reservoir water level that is monitored i days before the

RI
seepage element monitoring time, and ai is the regression coefficient.
The influence of rainfall on the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level is not an average process, and it
can be evaluated with the previous rainfall Pj ( j = 0,1,L , m2′ ) that is monitored j days before the seepage element

SC
monitoring time:
m2′
∆hP = ∑ b′j Pj (6)
j =0

U
where b′j is the regression coefficient.
The temperature component in the daily variation of the upstream reservoir water level is determined by the
AN
periodic function as shown in Eq. (1).

4.2. Optimization of input factors of SVM model

M

As for a given sample combination {( xi , yi ) , i = 1, 2,L , n} , a linear function can be determined to express the
relationship between an input vector xi = ( x1i , x2i ,L , xri ) and an output value f ( xi ) . f ( x ) is determined according
to the criterion of minimum cumulative square deviation between the output value f ( xi ) and the actual value yi .
D

When using the nonlinear regression, the input vector is first mapped into a high dimensional space using the nonlinear
mapping φ : x → φ ( x ) , and then the nonlinear problem is transformed into a linear problem in the high dimensional
TE

space. Thus, the relationship between the SVM input and output vectors can be expressed as f ( x ) = ωT ⋅ φ ( x ) + b , and
the corresponding optimization criterion is defined as follows:
1 
min  ω + C ∑ (ξi + ξi∗ )
n
2
EP

 2 i =1 
 yi − f ( xi ) ≤ ε + ξi (7)

s.t.  f ( xi ) − yi ≤ ε + ξi∗
i = 1, 2,L , n
C

ξ , ξ ∗ ≥ 0
 i i
where ω and b are one-dimensional vectors determined in the optimization process; ξi and ξi∗ are the slack
AC

variables introduced due to the allowance of fitting error; and C is the penalty factor of the sample whose training error
is greater than the threshold ε , where C > 0 .
Sensitivity analysis is an effective method of studying the importance of each input factor. To reduce the input space
dimension of the SVM with high prediction accuracy, the initially determined uncertain input factors of the initial SVM
model are optimized through sensitivity analysis, and some unimportant factors can be eliminated. The sensitivity of an
SVM input factor to an output factor can be expressed as the partial derivative of the model output factor with respect to
the input factor, and the sensitivity of the lth SVM input factor to the output vector f ( xi ) is defined as follows (Su et
al., 2015b):
1 n ∂f ( xi )
Sl = ∑ l = 1, 2,L , r (8)
n i =1 ∂xli
where n is the total number of training samples, and r is the total amount of the used input factor.
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
To evaluate the prediction performance of the established SVM model, the mean square deviation (MSE) is
calculated as follows:
1 n
MSE = ∑  f ( xi ) − yi 
2
(9)
n i =1

4.3. Establishment of daily variation SVM model

Due to the uncertainty of the lag time of the piezometric tube water level with respect to the reservoir water level
and rainfall, it is difficult to determine the previous factors in Eqs. (5) and (6), of which the measured time series prior to
the monitoring time of the piezometric tube water level may have a certain influence on the monitored results. Therefore,
to achieve the highest prediction accuracy with the least number of model input factors, a daily variation SVM model for

PT
dam seepage elements was developed as follows:
Step 1: The correlation coefficients between the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level and the
previously measured time series of rainfall and the daily variation of the reservoir water level are calculated, and the

RI
factors that have positive correlation coefficients with the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level are
determined.
Step 2: An initial SVM model with the initially determined input factor set is established.

SC
Step 3: The sensitivities of the input factors to the output factor in the SVM model are calculated with Eq. (8).
Step 4: The input factor with the least amount of sensitivity is eliminated, and a new input factor set with the
remaining input factors is developed.

U
Step 5: A new SVM model is established based on the optimized input factor set.
Step 6: The MSE of the newly established SVM model is calculated, and the MSE is used as the performance
AN
evaluation index of the SVM model during the process of eliminating unimportant input factors.
Step 7: It is determined whether the initially removed input factor in Step 4 should be finally eliminated or not. If
the MSE of the newly established SVM model decreases or increases with a relative increment of the MSE smaller than
the preset threshold ε 0 , which means that the elimination of this input factor either can increase the prediction accuracy
M

or has little influence on the prediction accuracy of the SVM model, this input factor can be eliminated. Then, the
sensitivity analysis should be continued by returning to Step 3. Otherwise, if the MSE of the newly established SVM
D

model increases, with a relative increment of the MSE larger than the preset threshold ε 0 , which means that the
elimination of this input factor will significantly reduce the prediction accuracy of the SVM model, this input factor
TE

should be retained, and the optimization process of input factors is stopped.

A flow chart for establishing the daily variation SVM model of dam seepage elements is shown in Fig. 4.
C EP
AC

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D

Fig. 4. Flow chart for establishing daily variation SVM model of dam seepage elements

5. Case study
TE

The Mianhuatan Dam is located on the Tingjiang River of Fujian Province, China. The crest elevation and
maximum dam height of this roller-compacted concrete gravity dam are 179.0 m and 113.0 m, respectively. To monitor
the seepage behavior at the abutment, seven piezometric tubes were embedded under the left and right dam slopes.
EP

Several piezometric tubes were located further downstream, and their water levels changed slightly. Two piezometric
tubes with high sensitivity to environmental factors were selected to establish the monitoring models for the base flow
effect and daily variation of dam seepage elements. These two piezometric tubes were embedded in front and at the back
C

of the impervious curtain of the right dam abutment, marked as R1 and R3, respectively in Fig. 5. The plane layout of the
dam and the locations of the analyzed piezometric tubes are shown in Fig. 5.
AC

Fig. 5. Plane layout of dam and locations of piezometric tubes

5.1. Monitoring model for base flow effect

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
To establish the base flow effect monitoring model, time series of the two piezometric tube water levels were first
decomposed with the wavelet multi-resolution analysis method. The dam was constructed together with an incomplete
reservoir regulated annually. When the piezometric tube water levels were decomposed to the eighth layer, the periods of
the high-frequency and low-frequency components were respectively 341 days and 512 days, and thus the low-frequency
component could be determined as the base value. Time series of the two piezometric tube water levels and extracted
base values are shown in Fig. 6. It can be seen that the base values of the piezometric tube water level and reservoir
water level are basically in a steady state, the piezometric tube water level changes in significant correlation with the
reservoir water level, and the time lag effect clearly exists. Due to the higher embedment elevation under the abutment
slope and the location in front of the impervious curtain, the water level of the piezometric tube R1 is higher than the
reservoir water level. According to Eq. (3), the monitoring models for the base flow effect of the two piezometric tube

PT
water levels are as follows:
(1) Piezometric tube R1:
hb = 96.6211 + 0.4862 H b − 0.1827θ + 0.5869ln θ (10)

RI
(2) Piezometric tube R3:
hb = 73.3497 + 0.3805H b − 0.0955θ + 0.3499 ln θ (11)

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 6. Time series of two piezometric tube water levels and reservoir water level
The multi-correlation coefficient between the monitored and fitted base values of the piezometric tube water level
and MSE value were 0.91 and 0.084 for the base flow effect monitoring model of R1, and 0.94 and 0.028 for the base
flow effect monitoring model of R3, respectively, indicating that the two established models could better reflect the
monitored base values. Fig. 6 shows that the time effect components of the piezometric tube water level base values
increase quickly at the initial stage of the analyzed period and slightly decrease in the long-term operation. The evolution
of these two piezometric tube water levels shows that the seepage behavior of the right abutment slope was stable.

5.2. Daily variation SVM model for dam seepage elements

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The correlation coefficients between the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level and the previous factors
were first calculated, as shown in Fig. 7. On this basis, the previous input factors were determined: daily variations of the
reservoir water level within the previous 21 days ( ∆H1 through ∆H 21 ) and 23 days ( ∆H1 through ∆H 23 ), and
rainfalls within the previous 23 days ( P1 through P23 ) and 16 days ( P1 through P16 ), were respectively considered in
the initial SVM models of R1 and R3. Therefore, taking the temperature factors and the two current factors ( ∆H 0 and
P0 ) into account, there were in total 50 and 45 input factors, respectively, for the two initial SVM models.

PT
RI
SC
Fig. 7. Relationships between lag time and correlation coefficient between daily variation of piezometric tube water level and its previous
factors
According to Fig. 4, the daily variation SVM model was established for the water levels of the two piezometric
tubes. The total number of monitoring samples was 630, of which 600 samples were used for training the SVM model

U
and the remaining 30 samples were used for testing. Evolution of the MSE value during the process of optimizing the
SVM model input factors is shown in Fig. 8, which demonstrates that the minimum MSE values were 7.5×10-3 and 4.46
AN
×10-3 for R1 and R3, respectively. The SVM model input factor optimization processes for R1 and R3 are shown in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively, in which 29 and 21 input factors were respectively eliminated in turn for the SVM models
of R1 and R3. A threshold of the MSE increase ratio, relative to the minimum MSE value of each optimization process,
M

was preset as 5% in this study. Therefore, the 29th model and 21st model, with the optimal MSE values of 7.87×10-3
and 4.49×10-3, were respectively determined to be the best daily variation SVM models for R1 and R3.
D
TE
EP

Fig. 8. Evolution of MSE during process of optimizing SVM model input factors
Table 1
C

Input factor optimization process for SVM model of R1

Model Eliminated Model Eliminated Model Eliminated
AC

number input factor number input factor number input factor in

in this step in this step this step
1 ∆H12 11 ∆H10 21 ∆H16
2 ∆H14 12 ∆H 7 22 ∆H 4
3 ∆H15 13 P23 23 sin ( 2πt 365 )
4 P9 14 P13 24 ∆H19
5 P11 15 P22 25 ∆H 5
6 P21 16 ∆H 9 26 P18
7 P8 17 sin ( 4πt 365 ) 27 ∆H17
8 P20 18 ∆H 21 28 P7
9 P16 19 cos ( 4πt 365 ) 29 ∆H13
10 P19 20 P15

Table 2
Input factor optimization process for SVM model of R3

9
Model Eliminated Model Eliminated Model Eliminated
number input factor in
this step
number input factor in
this step
ACCEPTED
number input factor in
this step
MANUSCRIPT
1 ∆H 23 8 P9 15 P11
2 P13 9 P12 16 P14
3 P10 10 ∆H11 17 P6
4 ∆H15 11 ∆H13 18 ∆H10
5 P8 12 P16 19 sin ( 2πt 365 )
6 ∆H 21 13 ∆H17 20 ∆H18
7 ∆H14 14 P15 21 ∆H 3

With the optimized SVM model and its input factors, the daily variations of the two piezometric tube water levels
were respectively fitted, as shown in Fig. 9. As can be seen, the daily variations of the monitored value and the fitted

PT
value of the SVM model are basically the same, except for a few large errors caused by monitoring errors or some other
reasons. Therefore, the established daily variation SVM model can be used to predict and evaluate the fluctuation of the
piezometric tube water level with the change of environmental factors.

RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 9. Monitored and fitted daily variations of piezometric tube water level
To evaluate the accuracy of the optimized SVM model, boxplots of residuals were used to conduct the error analysis.
M

The boxplot consisted of the mean, the median, the upper quartile Q3 , the lower quartile Q1 , and the minimum and
maximum values of the residuals. Outliers could be identified when they were beyond the minimum limit and maximum
D

limit. Boxplots of residuals for the optimized SVM model and initial SVM model are shown in Fig. 10, in which the
small box is used to express the mean value. The figure clearly shows that the optimized SVM models for R1 and R3
TE

have no outliers, and the residuals are in the normal distribution. Therefore, the data mining ability of the optimized
SVM model is better than that of the initial SVM model.
C EP
AC

Fig. 10. Boxplots of residuals for optimized SVM model and initial SVM model

5.3. Discussion
Traditional HPTT models were also established for R1 and R3 with the stepwise regression method. Regression
coefficients in Eq. (1) are shown in Table 3, and time series of the separated components are shown in Fig. 11. It needs to
be noted that these two piezometric tubes were all located higher than the downstream reservoir water level, so the
downstream hydraulic component hd was not considered in the HPTT model. It can be seen that the time effect
components separated by the proposed base flow effect monitoring model and the traditional HPTT model are very close,

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and the maximum values were 2.80 m and 2.83 m for R1, and 1.62 m and 1.38 m for R3, respectively. During the
stepwise regression process, the previous factors H1 and H 2 were eliminated, while H 0 , H 3− 4 , H 5−15 , and H16 −30
were retained. This phenomenon is not consistent with the seepage lag effect, which is presented as a continuous normal
distribution, indicating that the HPTT model could not fully explain the variation of the piezometric tube water level in
this study.
Table3
Coefficients of HPTT models for R1 and R3
Piezometric Constant H0 H1 H2 H 3 4 H 515 H 16 30 P0 P1 P2
tube term
R1 109.89 0.1129 0 0 0.0664 0.0722 0.1242 0 0 0.0078
R3 111.37 0.0639 0 0 0.0907 0.0785 0.1035 0 0 0

Piezometric cos ( 2πt 365 ) sin ( 2πt 365 ) sin ( 4πt 365 ) cos ( 4πt 365 ) θ ln θ

PT
P3 4 P515 P16 30
tube
R1 0.0182 0.0908 0.0799 0.7454 1.3692 −0.1444 −0.4205 −0.3468 0.6639
R3 0.0113 0.0686 0.0617 0.6577 1.0064 −0.3766 −0.3666 −0.1419 0.2718

RI
Notes: The subscript means the previous time period used for calculating the segmental average value.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 11. Time series of separated components obtained with HPTT model
Fig. 11 shows that the proportions of rainfall and temperature components are very small, and the base value of the
piezometric tube water level is mainly interpreted by the hydraulic component and time effect component. Fig. 12 shows
the time series of the fitted base values of the piezometric tube water level. It can be seen that the fitted base values
obtained by the two methods are almost consistent, and the proposed method can better reflect the tendency change.
Therefore, the proposed base flow effect monitoring model is feasible.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Fig. 12. Time series of fitted base value of piezometric tube water level
Sensitivity analysis of the input factors of the daily variation SVM models for R1 and R3 was conducted. The
distributions of sensitivities of the daily variation of the upstream reservoir water level and rainfall with lag time are

RI
shown in Figs. 13 and 14. The results show the following: (1) Sensitivities of the daily variation of the upstream
reservoir water level and rainfall present a normal distribution, especially for the daily variation of the upstream reservoir
water level of the SVM model for R1 and the rainfall of the SVM model for R3. It is in accordance with the results that

SC
the influences of the reservoir water level and rainfall on seepage elements follow the normal distribution (Gu and Wu,
2006; Qiu et al., 2016). (2) Sensitivities of rainfall input factors are obviously higher than those of the daily variation of
the upstream reservoir water level, e.g., for the SVM model of R1, the maximum sensitivities of rainfall and the daily

U
variation of the upstream reservoir water level were 0.5705 (P1) and 0.1797 ( ∆H 6 ), and the average sensitivities of
rainfall and the daily variation of the upstream reservoir water level were 0.1686 and 0.1115, respectively. This means
AN
that rainfall has a more significant impact on the piezometric tube water level. The reason for this is that these two
piezometric tubes were buried under the slope of the dam’s right bank, which made the rainfall more likely to seep into
the piezometric tube than reservoir water. (3) The seepage lag time and influencing period of rainfall are both shorter
M

than those of the daily variation of the upstream reservoir water level. For the rainfall, the seepage lag time and
influencing period were one day and three days for R1, and one day and six days for R3, respectively. However, the
difference between influences caused by the previous daily variation of the upstream reservoir water level on the two
D

piezometer tube water levels is not clear, and the lag time and influencing period of the daily variation of the upstream
reservoir water level for R3 were determined to be four days and eight days, respectively. This phenomenon can be
TE

interpreted by the fact that the seepage path of rainfall is shorter than that of the upstream reservoir water.
C EP
AC

Fig. 13. Sensitivity distributions of daily variation of upstream reservoir water level and rainfall for SVM model of R1

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Fig. 14. Sensitivity distributions of daily variation of upstream reservoir water level and rainfall for SVM model of R3
The aforementioned analyses can also verify the rationality of the proposed daily variation SVM model. In contrast
to the MSE values of the initial SVM model with non-optimized input factors, which were 9.14×10-3 and 5.22×10-3 for
R1 and R3, respectively, the MSE values of the optimized SVM model were 7.87×10-3 and 4.49×10-3 for R1 and R3,

RI
13.4% and 14.0% lower, respectively. On the other hand, the time intervals between the monitoring time of the
remaining input factors after optimization and that of the piezometric tube water level are generally smaller, and the

SC
sensitivity distributions of the input factors accord with the lag influence rule of unsteady seepage, which presents with
continuous normal distribution.

6. Conclusions

U
To investigate the base flow effect and time lag effect of unsteady seepage, monitoring models for the base flow
AN
effect and daily variation of dam seepage elements were respectively established to predict and evaluate the long-term
trend and short-term fluctuation of the dam seepage behavior in this study. The following conclusions are drawn:
(1) The base flow effect of the piezometric tube water level is mainly interpreted by the hydraulic component and
M

time effect component. The time effect component and fitted base value obtained with the proposed base flow effect
monitoring model are close to those obtained with the traditional HPTT model, and the interpretation rationality of the
proposed model is better than that of the traditional HPTT model. Therefore, the proposed base flow effect monitoring
D

model is feasible.
(2) Sensitivity analysis of the input factors of the optimized SVM model shows that the influences of the daily
TE

variation of the reservoir water level and rainfall on the daily variation of the piezometric tube water level follow normal
distribution. The SVM-based sensitivity analysis can also be used to optimize the lag time and influencing period in the
equivalent value method of the statistical model.
EP

(3) Under the normal condition of a dam-foundation impervious curtain, the seepage behavior of the dam bank
slope is more likely influenced by rainfall, while the difference between the influences caused by the previous daily
variations of the upstream reservoir water level on seepage elements is not clear. The time lag effect of external factors
on seepage elements should be considered in diagnosing the abnormity of dam seepage behavior.
C

References
AC

Adamowski, J., Chan, H.F., 2011. A wavelet neural network conjunction model for groundwater level forecasting. Journal of Hydrology,
407(1–4), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.06.013.
Alonso, E.E., Pinyol, N.M., 2016. Numerical analysis of rapid drawdown: Applications in real cases. Water Science and Engineering, 9(3),
175-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2016.11.003.
Chen, X.D., Gu, C.S., Chen, H.N., 2013. Early warning of dam seepage with cooperation between principal component analysis and least
squares wavelet support vector machine. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 22(2), 500-507.
Fu, C.J., Yao, X.W., Li, T., Shen, H.Y., Wang, Z.Y., Jiang, J.Q., 2014. Investigation and evaluation of increasing uplift pressure in an arch
dam: A case study of the Huaguangtan Dam. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(6), 1858-1867.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0432-3.
Gu, C.S., Wu, Z.R., 2006. The Safety Monitoring Theory and Application to Dams and Foundations. Hohai University Press, Nanjing (in
Chinese).
Hu, J., Ma, F.H., 2016. Comprehensive investigation method for sudden increases of uplift pressures beneath gravity dams: Case study.
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.000087.
Kao, C.Y., Loh, C.H., 2011. Monitoring of long-term static deformation data of Fei-Tsui arch dam using artificial neural network-based
approaches. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 20(3), 282-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.492.
13
Li, J.C., 1994. Gouhou Dam and analysis for causes of the dam failure. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 16(6), 1-14 (in
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Chinese). https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.1994.06.001.
Liu, Z.F., Sun, H., 2011. Observed data-based method for non-steady seepage of dams. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 33(11),
1807-1811 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.11779/CJGE201110023.
Malkawi, A.I.H., Al-Sheriadeh, M., 2000. Evaluation and rehabilitation of dam seepage problems, A case study: Kafrein am. Engineering
Geology, 56(3-4), 335-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(99)00117-9.
Mata, J., 2011. Interpretation of concrete dam behaviour with artificial neural network and multiple linear regression models. Engineering
Structures, 33(3), 903-910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.011.
Monjezi, M., Hasanipanah, M., Khandelwal, M., 2013. Evaluation and prediction of blast-induced ground vibration at Shur River Dam, Iran,
by artificial neural network. Neural Computing and Applications, 22(7-8), 1637-1643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-0856-y.
Qiu, J.C., Zheng, D.J., Zhu, K., 2016. Seepage monitoring models study of earth-rock dams influenced by rainstorms. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1656738.
Ranković, V., Novaković, A., Grujović, N., Divac, D., Milivojević, N., 2014. Predicting piezometric water level in dams via artificial neural

PT
networks. Neural Computing & Applications, 24(5), 1115-1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1334-2.
Su, H.Z., Hu, J., Yang, M., 2015a. Dam seepage monitoring based on distributed optical fiber temperature system. IEEE Sensors Journal,
15(1), 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2014.2335197.
Su, H.Z., Chen, Z.X., Wen, Z. P., 2015b. Performance improvement method of support vector machine-based model monitoring dam safety.

RI
Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 23(2), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1767.
Wang, S.W., Bao, T.F., 2013. Monitoring model for dam seepage based on lag effect. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 353-356, 2456-2462.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.353-356.2456.

SC
Wang, S.W., Gu, C.S., Bao, T.F., 2018. Observed displacement data-based identification method of deformation time-varying effect of high
concrete dams. Science China: Technological Sciences, 61(6), 906-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-016-9088-9.
Wei, B.W., Gu, M.H., Li, H.K., Xiong, W., Xu, Z.K., 2018. Modeling method for predicting seepage of RCC dams considering time-varying
and lag effect. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 25(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2081.

U
Wu, S.Y., Cao, W., Zheng, J., 2016. Analysis of working behavior of Jinping-I Arch Dam during initial impoundment. Water Science and
Engineering, 9(3), 240-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2016.11.001.
AN
Yu, H., Bao, T.F., Xue, L.F., 2010. Numerical simulation of the hysteretic effects of rainfall. Journal of Hydroelectric Engineering, 29(4),
200-206. (in Chinese)
Zheng, D.J., Cheng, L., Bao, T.F., Lv, B.B., 2013. Integrated parameter inversion analysis method of a CFRD based on multi-output support
vector machines and the clonal selection algorithm. Computers and Geotechnics, 47(1), 68-77.
M

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2012.07.006.
D
TE
C EP
AC

14