Professional Documents
Culture Documents
++ar - Prediction of Ultimate Shear Strength of RC Beams With Rnas
++ar - Prediction of Ultimate Shear Strength of RC Beams With Rnas
net/publication/245304648
CITATIONS READS
92 146
2 authors, including:
M. P. Saka
University of Bahrain
161 PUBLICATIONS 3,034 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by M. P. Saka on 18 July 2017.
ABSTRACT: This study explores the use of artificial neural networks in predicting the ultimate shear strength
of reinforced-concrete deep beams. One hundred eleven experimental data collected from the literature cover
the simple case of a simply supported beam with two point loads acting symmetrically with respect to the
centerline of the span. The data are arranged in a format such that 10 input parameters cover the geometrical
and material properties of the deep beam and the corresponding output value is the ultimate shear strength.
Among the available methods in the literature, the American Concrete Institute, strut-and-tie, and Mau-Hsu
methods were selected because of their accuracy and used to calculate the shear strength of each beam in the
set. Later, an artificial neural network is developed using two different software programs and the ultimate shear
strength of each beam is determined form these networks. It is found that the average ratio of actual and predicted
shear strength was 0.99 for the neural network, 2.08 for the American Concrete Institute method, 0.85 for the
strut-and-tie method, and 0.84 for the Mau-Hsu method. It is apparent that neural networks provide an efficient
alternative method in predicting the shear strength capacity of reinforced-concrete deep beams where several
equations exist, none of which produce an accurate result.
Smith and Vantsiotis 1982; Rogowsky et al. 1986; Mau and in such a way that 10 basic parameters are listed as input
Hsu 1989; Tan and Lu 1999; Hwang et al. 2000). values and the shear strength is included as the corresponding
output value. The complete list of the data is given in the
Experimental Data Appendix, where the name and the source of each specimen
are referenced (Sanad 1997). The data collected contain the
The experimental data collected from the literature cover ranges, which vary from 0.95 to 5.40 for effective-span/depth
the shear strength of the specimens, which are simply sup- ratios, from 1.57 to 47 for effective-depth/breadth ratios, and
ported and subjected to two point loads acting symmetrically from 0.23 to 3.00 for shear-span/effective-depth ratios.
with respect to the centerline of the span. This case provides
a larger amount of data than other cases do, which is essential Numerical Methods
for better training of a network. During the collection of the
data, specimens that do not have shear-related failures have Several methods exist in the literature for the prediction of
been excluded from the training set. The basic parameters that the shear strength of reinforced-concrete deep beams. The
control the shear strength of deep beams, based on previous most prominent among these, which are selected and used in
research works, are shown in Fig. 1. These parameters are this study for the comparison of the results from the neural
listed below: network, are outlined in the following.
Subedi et al. (1986), Kong et al. (1995), ‘‘Discussion’’ (1995), which should not be greater than 6兹f ⬘b c w d. The upper bound
Kang et al. (1995), and Ramakrishnan and Ananthanarayana on the term within the first bracket is 2.5. Furthermore the
(1968). It is apparent that each set of experimental data is in shear strength Vn for the deep beam should not be greater than
a different format. After a thorough study of the tables and 8兹f ⬘b
c w d when ln /d < 2. When ln /d is between 2 and 5, the
diagrams given in the above references, the data are rearranged following expression is to be used for Vn :
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001 / 819
Vn =
2
3 冉10 ⫹
d冊
ln
兹f ⬘b
c wd (3)
equations in the strut-and-tie model. The expression is dimen-
sionless and contains four variables that express the horizontal
and vertical reinforcement ratios, concrete strength, and shear-
Note that (2) and (3) are in inches and pounds whereas this span ratio. The constants in the formula were calibrated using
paper is in SI units. Appropriate unit conversion is carried out the experimental data available in the literature. The expres-
when the equation is used in the computation of the shear sion for the shear strength of the deep beam is as follows:
strength of deep beams.
Vn = v bw d (7)
冋 冉 冊 冉 冊册
The shear strength Vs is computed by
ln ln v 1
1⫹ 11 ⫺ = [K(wh ⫹ 0.03)
Av d Av h d f ⬘c 2
Vs = ⫹ fy d (4)
s 12 s2 12 ⫹ 兹K 2(wh ⫹ 0.03)2 ⫹ 4(wh ⫹ 0.03)(wv ⫹ 0.03)] ⱕ 0.3 (8)
with the following limitations:
where Vn = nominal shear strength of the deep beam; =
shear strength reduction factor, taken as 0.85; Vc and Vn = wh = h fy /f ⬘c ⱕ 0.26; wv = v fy /f ⬘c ⱕ 0.12 (9a,b)
shear strengths provided by concrete and shear reinforcements, K = 2d/h, for 0 ⱕ a/h ⱕ 0.5 (10a)
冋冉 冊册
respectively; Vu and Mu = factored shear force and moment at
the critical section; d = effective depth of the section; bw = d h 4 2a
K= ⫺ , for 0.5 < a/h ⱕ 2 (10b)
width of the section; ln = clear span of concrete; f ⬘c = cylinder h a 3 3h
compressive strength of concrete; w = ratio of flexural tensile
reinforcement; Av = area of shear reinforcement perpendicular K = 0, for a/h > 2 (10c)
to flexural tension reinforcement within a distance s; Av h = where d and bw = effective depth and width of the beam; f ⬘c =
area of shear reinforcement parallel to flexural reinforcement cylinder compressive strength of concrete; h = total depth of
within a distance s2 ; and fy = yield strength of shear reinforce- the beam; a = shear span; K = ratio of the effective compres-
ment.
Validation of the ACI formula was carried out by a number
of researchers. It was reported in Rogowski et al. (1986) that
there is little agreement between the experimental values of
shear strength and those predicted by the ACI code formula.
In general, test-to-code ratios were conservative for simply
supported beams with a mean-test/code ratio of 1.88. It is ob-
served in Sanad (1997) that, for high-strength concrete deep
beams within the ranges of compressive strengths of 43–96
MPa, shear-span-to-depth ratio of 0.22–1.5, and slenderness
ratio (h/bw) of 4–50, the ACI method was overwhelmingly
conservative (almost 2) in all cases. Mau and Hsu (1989) have
carried out a number of experiments on deep beams and com-
pared test results with those of the ACI method. The mean
value of computed shear strength to the experimental one was
0.507. It is clear that the ACI formula predicts the shear
strength of deep beams on the conservative side, with a very
large safety margin.
Strut-and-Tie Method
This method was proposed by Wen (1993) based on a strut-
and-tie model. The proposed formula is
Vu = 1.8 ft bw d (5)
ft = 6.96兹f ⬘[1
c ⫹ m(k sin2 ⫹ v cos2)] (6)
where Vu = shear strength of the deep beam; ft = allowable
tensile strength of concrete; bw and d = width and effective
depth of the beam; f c⬘ = cylinder compressive strength of con- FIG. 2. Artificial Neural Network: (a) Neural Network; (b) Processing
crete; m = modular ratio of steel reinforcement to concrete; h Element
and v = steel ratios of horizontal and vertical steel reinforce-
ment; and = angle with the horizontal made by the line
joining the edges of the loading plates and supports. TABLE 1. Ranges of Parameters in Database
It was reported by Wen that the formula is fairly accurate,
with an actual/predicted ratio of 0.83, in computing the shear Input parameters Range
strength of deep beams with a shear span to depth ratio <1.04. L/d 0.95–5.4
But as this ratio becomes >1.29, the validity of the equation d/bw 2.83–47
declines rapidly because the behavior of the beam starts to a/d 0.22–2.16
deviate from that of the deep beam. f c⬘ 12.5–76
fy h 250–600
fy v 0–460
Mau-Hsu Method h 0.05–1.94
ht 0.14–2.95
Mau and Hsu (1989) derived an explicit expression for the v 0–2.45
shear strength of deep beams, using the three equilibrium
820 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001
sive stress in the transverse direction to the effective shear Other Methods
stress in the shear element; and wh and wv = reinforcement There are a number of other methods in the literature sug-
indices in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively. gested for the prediction of the shear strength of reinforced-
Mau and Hsu stated that their formula is to be used within concrete deep beams. Some of these are outlined in the fol-
the following limitations: lowing.
The CEB-FIP model code (1990) uses the strut-and-tie
• Span/effective-depth ratio (L/d) should be between 0.95 method (ASCE-ACI 1998). The code allows the use of the
and 3.3 lower-bound approach of the theory of plasticity. The com-
• Reinforcement ratio of horizontal web steel (v h) should pressive stress in the strut is limited by the value calculated
be between 0 and 0.0091 using the effectiveness factor, which is a function of the char-
• Reinforcement ratio of vertical steel (v) should be be- acteristic cylinder strength. The required minimum amount for
tween 0.0018 and 0.0245 the shear reinforcement in the webs of beams is expressed in
• Reinforcement ratio of compression steel (c) should be terms of a mechanical reinforcing ratio rather than a geomet-
between 0 and 0.0092 rical value minimum v .
• Concrete cylinder compression strength ( f ⬘)
c should be The Construction Industry Research and Information As-
close to 21 MPa sociation (CIRIA) method (1984) determines the shear
strength of deep beams with a clear-span-to-depth ratio of 0–
TABLE 2. Ultimate Shear Strength Values for Deep Beam Specimens 0.7. The method requires the depth of flexural cracks and the
Obtained by Neural Networks
angle these cracks make with the steel bars as input informa-
Propagator Software Predict Software tion. Such information was not available in the experimental
data collected.
Specimen Error Error
number (%) Vpred /Vexp (%) Vpred /Vexp
There are other methods reported in the literature, such as
the formula of Ramakrishnan and Ananthanarayana (1968) and
3 ⫺24.5 0.75 ⫺9.1 0.91 Zsutty’s equation (1971). None of the above methods were
7 ⫺23.0 0.77 ⫺1.6 0.98
23 ⫺13.2 0.87 0.2 1.00 selected in the comparative study because either they require
36 ⫺4.4 0.96 10.7 1.11 additional information that is not available in the experimental
45 ⫺19.6 0.80 2.1 1.02 data collected or they neglect the effect of one or more of the
80 ⫺16.1 0.84 0.5 1.01 selected input parameters that are used in the training of the
86 17.4 1.17 20.6 1.21 neural network.
93 ⫺5.1 0.95 0.6 1.01
95 ⫺15.0 0.85 ⫺0.4 1.00 NEURAL NETWORK MODELING
99 ⫺9.2 0.91 7.4 1.07
Average ⫺11.27 0.887 3.10 1.032
An artificial neural network is a computational tool that at-
tempts to simulate the architecture and internal operational fea-
FIG. 3. Comparison of Shear Strengths of Deep Beams Obtained by Various Methods: (a) Strut-and-Tie Method; (b) ACI Code Method; (c) Mau-Hsu
Method; (d) Neural Network
FIG. 4. Variation of Actual Strength to Predicted Strength with L/d Ratio: (a) ACI Code Method; (b) Strut-and-Tie Method; (c) Mau-Hsu Method;
(d) Neural Network
FIG. 5. Variation of Actual Strength to Predicted Strength with a/d Ratio: (a) Strut-and-Tie Method; (b) ACI Code Method; (c) Mau-Hsu Method;
(d) Neural Network
FIG. 6. Variation of Actual Strength with f ⬘c : (a) Neural Network; (b) Strut-and-Tie Method; (c) Mau-Hsu Method; (d) ACI Code Method
Note: Specimens chosen for testing neural network have been highlighted.