Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00930-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A novel approach to predict shear strength of tilted angle connectors

using artificial intelligence techniques
Mahdi Shariati1 · Mohammad Saeed Mafipour2 · Peyman Mehrabi3 · Ali Shariati4,5 · Ali Toghroli1 ·
Nguyen Thoi Trung4,5 · Musab N. A. Salih6

Received: 12 January 2019 / Accepted: 30 December 2019 / Published online: 14 January 2020
© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Shear connectors play a prominent role in the design of steel-concrete composite systems. The behavior of shear connectors
is generally determined through conducting push-out tests. However, these tests are costly and require plenty of time. As
an alternative approach, soft computing (SC) can be used to eliminate the need for conducting push-out tests. This study
aims to investigate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, as sub-branches of SC methods, in the behavior
prediction of an innovative type of C-shaped shear connectors, called Tilted Angle Connectors. For this purpose, several
push-out tests are conducted on these connectors and the required data for the AI models are collected. Then, an adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) is developed to identify the most influencing parameters on the shear strength of the
tilted angle connectors. Totally, six different models are created based on the ANFIS results. Finally, AI techniques such
as an artificial neural network (ANN), an extreme learning machine (ELM), and another ANFIS are employed to predict
the shear strength of the connectors in each of the six models. The results of the paper show that slip is the most influential
factor in the shear strength of tilted connectors and after that, the inclination angle is the most effective one. Moreover, it is
deducted that considering only four parameters in the predictive models is enough to have a very accurate prediction. It is also
demonstrated that ELM needs less time and it can reach slightly better performance indices than those of ANN and ANFIS.

Keywords  Tilted angle shear connectors · System identification · Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system · Extreme
learning machine · Artificial neural network

1 Introduction

Steel-concrete composite systems can provide increased

stiffness and resistance against applying loads while reduc-
ing the construction cost efficiently. The performance of
* Ali Shariati
alishariati@tdtu.edu.vn composite systems significantly depends on the behavior of
shear connectors [1, 2]. These connectors are used at the
1
Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, interface of materials to control interfacial shear forces and
Da Nang 550000, Viet Nam provide a mechanism through which the developed forces
2
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, can be transferred [3, 4]. Different types of shear connec-
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran tors have been proposed in order for connecting steel to
3
Department of Civil Engineering, K.N Toosi University concrete [5, 6]. C-shaped connectors are a type of shear
of Technology, Tehran, Iran connectors which have been increasingly used in construc-
4
Division of Computational Mathematics and Engineering, tion projects. These connectors are appropriate not only at
Institute for Computational Science, Ton Duc Thang transferring horizontal shear forces but also at controlling
University, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
uplift forces [7, 8]. In addition, they can be easily installed
5
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, in practice and no special construction equipment is required
Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
[9]. C-shaped shear connectors are classified into two major
6
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, categories including channel and angle connectors [10]. The
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

2090
only difference between these connectors lies in the lower
flange of the profiles. C-shaped angle connectors do not have
the lower flange of the channel connectors and the web of
the connector is directly connected to the upper flange of
the beam. Therefore, C-shaped angle connectors use less
materials than channel connectors do, while they can show
competitive performance with channel connectors [11].
However, there are only a limited number of researches on
the C-shaped shear connectors.
Rao [12] investigated the behavior of C-shaped shear con-
nectors through conducting push-out tests. The results of this
study showed that C-shaped connectors have considerable
ductility and load-bearing capacity. Yokota and Kiyomia [13]
evaluated the shear resistance and deformation of different
types of connectors including angles, channels, and T-shaped
connectors. This investigation also confirmed the satisfying
performance of C-shaped connectors in composite systems.
Ciutina and Stratan [14] studied and compared the behavior
of L-shaped angle connectors, headed stud connectors, per-
fobond connectors, and reinforcement hooks under monotonic
and cyclic loading conditions. This study showed that cyclic
loading can reduce the shear resistance of shear connectors by
up to 10 to 40% compared with monotonic loading conditions.
Choi et al. [15, 16] conducted fatigue tests on the C-shaped
angle shear connectors and analyzed the experimental results
by the finite element method (FEM). It was concluded that
the concentration of stresses is in the toe of the C-shaped
angle connectors and cracks are initiated and propagated at
the welded toe. Moreover, it was deducted that the stress level
at the welded joint is lower than the fatigue limit. C-shaped
angle connectors also showed a very reliable performance in
the wheel truck tests conducted by Fukazawa et al. [17]. Saidi
et al. [18] developed a numerical model for the analysis of
C-shaped angle and T-shaped shear connectors in steel-con-
crete sandwich beams and proposed load-slip relationships
to estimate the load-bearing capacity of the connectors. An
investigation by Ros and Shima [19] revealed that the direction
of C-shaped angle connectors is influential on the behavior of
angle connectors. Khalilian [20] developed a finite element
model and validated it by the results of push-out tests on the
C-shaped angle connectors. Shariati et al. [6, 10, 21–26] exper-
imentally studied the behavior of C-shaped angle connectors
in different types of concrete including light weight concrete
(LWC), normal strength concrete (NSC), and high strength
concrete (HSC). The results of these studies demonstrated that
the load-slip behavior of C-shaped angle connectors is highly
dependent on the compressive strength of concrete and it can
change ductility and stiffness of the connectors.
As the precursor studies show, the approach of conduct-
ing experiments has been very determinant to evaluate the
behavior of shear connectors [5, 27–30]. However, it needs
spending a great deal of time and cost in many cases [31].
On the other hand, although the approach of 3D modeling of
13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109
shear connectors and analyzing them by finite element method
(FEM) seems helpful, it also requires a high level of specialty
[32]. Hence, it seems that more advanced methods are still
required to not only eliminate the need for conducting costly
experiments as much as possible but also provide a simpler
and more practical tool for engineers. Soft Computing (SC)
is one of the efficient approaches which can be used in this
regard [33, 34]. This approach uses the human-based knowl-
edge in solving the linear and non-linear problems in which
the relationship among parameters cannot be simply expressed
[35–37]. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods and machine
learning techniques are sub-branches of the SC approach
which are capable of predicting experimental results in the
high-dimensional space of the problem. In recent years, several
researchers have employed AI methods and machine learning
techniques in the behavior prediction of structural components.
Ma et al. [38] used an artificial neural network (ANN) to
simulate the repaired fiber-reinforced concrete (FRP) col-
umns subjected to pre-damage loading. This study showed
that ANN is a very efficient and simple tool to predict the
behavior of rehabilitated columns by FRP. Shariati et al. [39]
combined an ANN with a particle swarm optimization (PSO)
algorithm to predict the behavior of channel shear connec-
tors in high strength concrete (HSC). It was concluded that
ANN can be successfully used in the load-slip behavior
prediction of channel shear connectors. In another study
[40], genetic programming (GP), extreme learning machine
(ELM), and ANN were used in the design of composite
systems at elevated temperatures. This study revealed that
ELM can result in a faster and more robust model comparing
with GP and ANN. Khademi et al. [41] developed an adap-
tive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), an ANN, and
a linear regression (LR) model to predict the compressive
strength of concrete. It was concluded that the LR model is
not appropriate to predict the compressive strength of con-
crete, since the problem seems non-linear, while the ANN
and ANFIS models are capable of achieving highly accurate
predictions. Toghroli et al. [42] used an ELM and an ANN
along with a GP to estimate ductility and shear strength of
steel-concrete composite beams. This study showed that the
ELM model can show better performance than that of the
other models in strength and ductility prediction of com-
posite beams. Naderpour and Mirrashid [43] reported high
accuracy of an ANFIS model in the moment capacity predic-
tion of spirally reinforce concrete. Basarir et al. [44] used
a multiple linear regression (MLR) model, a multiple non-
linear regression (MNLR) model, and an ANFIS model in
the prediction of ultimate pure bending moment of concrete-
filled steel tubes (CFTs). The results of this study showed
that ANFIS is more powerful than the MLR and MNLR
models and it can reach superior performance indices.
The main objective of the current paper is to predict
the shear strength of an innovative type of C-shaped angle
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2091

connectors known as tilted angle connectors. These connec-

tors are similar to the C-shaped angle connectors with this
difference that the connector has an inclination angle. This
configuration reduces the flexural moments at the toe of the
connector and can improve the load-bearing capacity of the
connector. To estimate the shear strength, a soft computing
(SC) approach is adopted and artificial intelligence (AI) meth-
ods and machine learning techniques are used. To generate
the required data for the AI techniques, several push-out tests
were conducted on the tilted angle shear connectors with dif-
ferent geometrical properties and totally, 2896 data points were
recorded. Slip, length, width, thickness, height, and inclina-
tion degree of the connectors are considered as inputs, and
shear strength is predicted as the output. As the first step, to
realize the most influencing factors on the shear strength of
Fig. 1  Configuration of the push-out test setup
the tilted angle connectors, system identification is performed
using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS).
Then, six models of these parameters with different combi- of test (i.e., Monotonic) and the type of shear connector (i.e.,
nations of the input variables are developed. Finally, three Angle) and the following numbers and letters show the incli-
different AI techniques including an artificial neural network nation degree and the size of angle profile. The star symbol in
(ANN), an extreme learning machine (ELM), and an ANFIS specimen No. 7 and 8 also implies the 100 mm length of the
are employed to estimate the shear strength of the connectors tilted angles. The results of the tensile test on the steel material
in each of the models. of the angle connectors are also available in Table 3.

2 Experimental program 2.2 Push‑out specimens

2.1 Materials and mixture proportion Push-out specimens consisted of a hot-rolled steel profile

The same concrete mix design was used in all the specimens.
The used cement in concrete was Ordinary Portland Cement
(OPC) type II according to ASTM C150 [45]. The fine aggre-
gate was sand with a maximum nominal size of 4.75 mm and
the coarse aggregate was gravel with a maximum nominal size
of 19 mm. 28-day compressive strength of the concrete speci-
mens was measured through cylindrical concrete test specimens
following ASTM C39 [46]. The average value of compressive
strength for all the specimens was obtained 24.89 MPa. The
mixture proportion of concrete can be seen in Table 1.
10 mm steel bars with a yield stress of 300 MPa were
applied to all the specimens. Angle connectors were of the type
L60, L80, and L100 with leg thicknesses of 6 mm, 8 mm, and
10 mm, respectively. The angle profiles had inclination degrees
of 112.5° and 135° with respect to the surface of the I-shaped
beam (see Fig. 1) and a length of 50 mm and 100 mm. Table 2
shows the geometrical details of the used tilted angle shear
connectors in the push-out tests. In this Table, the first two
letters of the specimen’s name (i.e., MA) represent the type
Table 1  Concrete mixture proportion
Material Cement Water Sand Gravel
Weight ratio 1 0.42 2.75 1.75
IPE270 with two tilted angle shear connectors connected to
each of the steel profile flanges. All the specimens were con-
fined with closed rectangular steel stirrups of 10 mm diam-
eter at both sides of the concrete blocks. The tilted angle
shear connectors were embedded in 150 × 250 × 300 mm
concrete blocks. The angles were fillet welded to the steel
profile. Note that in the MA135 specimens, both legs of the
connector were welded to the steel profile. Figure 2 illus-
trates the configuration of the angle connectors with differ-
ent inclination degrees.
2.3 Push‑out test
The Dartec Universal testing machine with a capacity of
1000 kN was used to conduct push-out tests. The loading
condition was displacement control and the rate of load-
ing was 0.1 mm/s. push out specimens were placed on the
desk of the Dartec testing machine and a uniform load was
applied from the top of the IPE270, as shown in Fig. 3.
2.4 Experimental results
2.4.1 Modes of failure
Two modes of failure are generally observed in push-out tests
including concrete crushing−splitting and shear connectors

13

2092 Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109

Table 2  Details of the tilted Speci- Specimen name Length (mm) Inclination (°) Height (mm) Width (mm) Thick-
angle connectors men no. ness
(mm)

1 MA 112.5 L60 50 112.5 60 60 6

2 MA 112.5 L80 50 112.5 80 80 8
3 MA 112.5 L100 50 112.5 100 100 10
4 MA 135 L60 50 135 60 60 6
5 MA 135 L80 50 135 80 80 8
6 MA 135 L100 50 135 100 100 10
7 MA* 112.5 L80 100 112.5 80 80 8
8 MA* 135 L80 100 135 80 80 8

Table 3  Mechanical properties of the tilted angle connectors
Size of angle connectors Fy (MPa) εy (%) Fu (MPa)
L60&80&100 377.68 0.19 500.73
fracture [21, 47, 48]. The failure mode of concrete crush-
ing−splitting is generally due to the compressive stresses
which develop below the shear connector and the tensile
stresses which occur above the connector [49]. On the other
hand, the failure mode of shear connector fracture is started
with yielding just above the welded leg due to the horizon-
tal shear forces and eccentric moments [50]. Figures 4 and 5
depict these modes of failure which were also seen in the test
εu (%)
specimens. Table 4 also shows the observed modes of failure
in all the specimens and their corresponding failure loads.
28.33 As can be seen in this table, all the modes of failure were of
the type concrete crushing−splitting except for the specimen
MA112.5 L100. Therefore, it seems that welding both legs of
the connectors in the MA135 specimens causes that yielding
does not occur at the leg of the connector and subsequently,
the mode of shear connector fracture cannot be seen. In addi-
tion, the inclination of the angle connectors results in reducing
the eccentric moments at the leg of the connector. Therefore,
the failure mode of shear connector fracture is less likely to
occur in the case of tilted angle shear connectors.

Fig. 2  Schematic presentation of the tilted angles connectors with inclination degree of : a 122.5°; b 135°

13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2093
Fig. 3  Push-out test setup
2.4.2 Load‑slip behavior
The load-slip diagrams of the MA112.5 and MA135 speci-
mens have been illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. It
can be seen in these diagrams that the relative slip at peak
loads is around 1 to 6 mm in the MA112.5 specimens, while
this value is around 0.5 to 1 mm in the MA135 specimens.
In addition, failure in MA135 specimens occurred abruptly.
Therefore, the MA112.5 specimens seemed more ductile
than MA135 ones. However, MA135 specimens could reach
higher shear strengths in most of the cases. This is mainly
due to the fact that MA135 specimens are capable of locking
concrete inside the V-shaped space between the flange of the
Fig. 4  Failure mode of concrete crushing−slitting
beam and the tilted angle connectors and this, in turn, can
increase shear capacity of the connector. In addition, it can
be seen in the diagrams that the more the V-shaped space
increases, the more shear demand can be met.
3 Methodology
3.1 Artificial neural network (ANN)
Artificial neural network (ANN), as an artificial intelligence
(AI) tool, has been inspired by the biological neural network
of humans [51]. ANN has been successfully employed in
three major fields of study including (1) function approxima-
tion, (2) classification, and (3) time series prediction. This
AI method with a layer to layer structure is capable of learn-
ing patterns and predicting results in the high-dimensional
space of the problem where finding the relationship among
parameters is complex [52]. Multilayer perceptron (MLP) is
a class of feed-forward ANN that contains an input layer, at
least one hidden layer, and an output layer [53, 54]. Inside
each of the layers, there can be one or several neurons. The
first layer of ANN receives the input values (nodal values)
and sends them to the available neurons in the next layer. A
typical neuron receiving the input values is shown in Fig. 8.
Inside each neuron, a weighted sum of the inputs is com-
puted. Then, this value, plus a value of bias, called Net, is
calculated. This mathematical process can be formulated as
below [55]:
∑
n
Net = wij xi + bj , (1)
i=1
13

2094 Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109

Fig. 5  Failure mode of shear connector fracture

Table 4  Failure mode and failure load of the specimens where y is the output signal; f is the activation function in
Speci- Specimen name Failure mode Failure load (kN)
the term of calculated network value (Net).
men This process is performed on each of the layers of the
no. MLP until the output signals in the last layer are deter-
mined. Then, the error value of the ANN is calculated
1 MA112.5L60 Concrete crushing− 101.56
splitting and minimized by updating the used weights and biases
2 MA112.5L80 Concrete crushing− 115.4 throughout the MLP. This process which is defined as
splitting training can be accomplished by different optimization
3 MA112.5L100 Connector fracture 120.09 algorithms. However, the fast convergence rate and appro-
4 MA135L60 Concrete crushing− 76.36 priate precision of backpropagation (BP) algorithms have
splitting caused these algorithms are generally employed in the
5 MA135L80 Concrete crushing− 134.11 training phase of standard ANNs [57].
splitting
6 MA135L100 Concrete crushing− 201.13
splitting
3.2 Adaptive neuro‑fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)
7 MA*112.5L80 Concrete crushing− 179.04
splitting
8 MA*135L80 Concrete crushing− 156.18 An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) is a
splitting specific sub-branch of ANN which benefits from the com-
bined features of neural networks and fuzzy logic princi-
ples [31, 58, 59]. ANFIS was developed by Jang [60] in
where xi is the nodal value in the previous layer. n is the 1993 to model non-linear functions, identify non-linear
total number of the nodal values received from the previous components, and predict chaotic time series. ANFIS is
layer. wij and bj are also weights and biases of the network capable of constructing an input−output mapping, based
in the current layer. on the Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy inference system (in the form
Finally, the Net value is transformed by an activation of fuzzy IF−THEN rules) [61, 62].
function and the output signal is transferred to the neurons ANFIS architecture has five layers, as shown in Fig. 9.
in the next layer. The tangent hyperbolic function is an The central core of the ANFIS is a fuzzy inference system
activation function that generally leads to more accurate (FIS). The first layer receives inputs (x and y in Fig. 9) and
results [56]; thus, this activation function is used in this converts them to fuzzy values by membership functions
study. This function varies in the range of [− 1, 1], and is (MFs).
defined as follows: The rule base contains two fuzzy IF−THEN rules of
2 Takagi’s and Sugeno’s type:
y = f (Net) = − 1, (2) Rule 1 if x is A1 and y is B1 , then f1 = p1 x + q1 y + r1,
1 + e−2.Net
Rule 2 if x is A2 and y is B2 , then f2 = p2 x + q2 y + r2,

13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2095

Fig. 6  Load-slip diagrams of the MA112.5 specimens: a MA112.5* L80; b MA112.5 L80; c MA112.5 L60; d MA112.5 L100

Every node in this layer (i.e., the first layer) is selected as capacity in the regression of non-linear data [63]. A bell-
an adaptive node with a node function: shaped membership function with the maximum value of
one and minimum value of zero is defined as follows:
O1i = 𝜇Ai (x), (3)
( ) 1
where Ai is a linguistic label, and O1i is
the membership func-
𝜇(x) = bell x; ai , bi , ci = [( )2 ]bi
,
x−ci (4)
tion of Ai. 1+ ai
Bell-shaped membership functions (or Gaussian func-
tions) are usually used in ANFIS as they have a higher

13

2096 Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109

Fig. 7  Load-slip diagrams of the MA112.5 specimens: a MA112.5* L80; b MA112.5 L80; c MA112.5 L60; d MA112.5 L100

Fig. 8  A typical neuron in the

structure of an ANN

13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2097

a gradient descent algorithm. This process continues until the

error becomes less than the threshold and ANFIS is trained.

3.3 Extreme learning machine (ELM)

The extreme learning machine (ELM) was proposed by Huang

Fig. 9  A typical ANFIS architecture
where { ai , bi , ci , di } are the parameters set and x is the
input. The parameters of this layer are known as premise
parameters.
The second layer multiplies the incoming signals and
sends their product to the next layer. For instance:
wi = 𝜇Ai (x) × 𝜇Bi (y), i = 1, 2.
et al. [64] in 2006 for single-layer feed-forward neural net-
work (SLFN) architectures. ELM is based on the assumption
that the random input weights and biases can approximate any
continuous function in the space of the problem [65]. This
assumption causes that the weights of the SLFN can be calcu-
lated based on mathematical theories and no iteration process
is involved in the problem. As a result, the ELM provides an
extremely fast algorithm for training the SLFN. Also, ELM
systematically determines all the network factors; thus, pre-
venting unnecessary human interferences [34].
A three-step procedure is involved in ELM: (1) an SLFN
is created; (2) weights and biases of the SLFN are randomly
assigned; (3) the output weights are estimated by inverting the
hidden layer output matrix [34, 66].
For a dataset containing N training samples with n-dimen-
sional input vectors and m-dimensional target vectors, the
SLFN with L hidden nodes can mathematically be defined as
(5) follows [64]:

Every output of the nodes exhibits the firing strength ∑

L
( )
of a rule. 𝛽i G wi .xj + bi = oj j = 1, 2, 3, … , N, (9)
i=1
The third layer is the rule layer. In this layer, the ratio
[ ]T
of the i  th node firing strength of rule to those of the other where G is the activation function; wi = wi1 , wi2 , … , win
nodes is calculated. This means that: is the weight vector connecting the i] th hidden neuron to
[ T
wi the input
[ neurons; xj =
]T xj1 , xj1 , … , xjm is the input vector;
w∗i = i = 1, 2. (6) 𝛽i = 𝛽i1 , 𝛽i2 , … , 𝛽im is the weight vector [ connecting the ]T
w1 + w2
hidden neurons to the output
[ neurons; b]i T bi1 , bi2 , … , bim
=
The outcomes w∗i are known as normalized firing is the bias vector; oj = oj1 , oj1 , … , ojm is the output vector.
strength. If it is assumed that an SLFN with L hidden neurons and
The fourth layer is the defuzzification layer in which activation function G can approximate the targets ( tj ) with zero
∑L
every node has a node function as below: error, i.e., j=1 oj − tj = 0 , Eq. (9) can be transformed to
( )
O4i = w∗i fi = w∗i pi x + qi y + ri , (7) ∑
L
( )
𝛽i G wi .xj + bi = tj j = 1, 2, 3, … , N, (10)
where w∗i is the output of the third layer and { pi , qi , ri } are the i=1
[ ]T
parameters of this layer known as consequent parameters. where tj = tj1 , tj2 , … , tjm is the target vector. Also, the
The output layer is the fifth layer. In this layer, the over- above N equations can be compactly written as
all output is computed by summing all the incoming sig-
nals. This means that H𝛽 = T, (11)
∑ in which
O51 = f = w∗i fi . (8)
i � � � �
⎡ G w1 + x1 + b1 … G wL .x1 + bL ⎤
In this process, a threshold value between the actual value H=⎢ � ⋮ �… � ⋮ �⎥
⎥ (12)
⎢
and the output values is set. Then, the consequent parame- ⎣ G w1 + xN + b1 … G wL .xN + bL ⎦N×L
ters are determined by the least-squares method and an error
value is obtained. If this value is larger than the considered and
threshold, the premise parameters are updated by the use of

13

2098 Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109

⎡ 𝛽1T ⎤ ⎡ t1T ⎤ can be normalized in the range of [− 1, 1] by the following

𝛽=⎢ ⋮ ⎥ andT = ⎢ ⋮ ⎥ . (13) formulas [67]:
⎢ T ⎥ ⎢ T⎥
⎣ 𝛽L ⎦L×m ⎣ tN ⎦N×m xio − xmin
xi =
xmax − xmin
×2−1 (15)
The output weights will be obtained if the minimum dif-
ference between the left side (predicted values) and the right
yio − ymin
side (target values) of Eq. (11) occurs, i.e., min H𝛽 − T  . yi = × 2 − 1, (16)
Although backpropagation (BP) algorithms can minimize ymax − ymin
this fitness function, ELM uses mathematical theories and
where xio and xi are the i  th component of each input vector
proves that the minimum error between the predicted and
before and after normalization, respectively, and yio and yi
target values occurs when the output weights vector is deter-
are the i  th component of the output vector before and after
mined as below [64]:
normalization, respectively. xmin , xmax , ymin , and ymax are
𝛽̂ = H † T, (14) the minimum and maximum value of each input and output
vector, respectively.
where 𝛽̂ is the output weights vector; H † is Moor−Penrose This is also important to be mentioned that because
generalized inverse matrix; T is the target vector. actual values are more tangible, the results can be denor-
As could be realized, the ELM algorithm tunes the malized after the training process and before reporting the
weights of the SLFN using Moor–Penrose generalized final results.
inverse matrix. Thus, no minimization process is involved
in a standard ELM.

5 Model performance indicators

4 Data and preparation
The performance of AI models is evaluated in two phases
The used data in this study was obtained from the load-slip of training and testing. For this purpose, 70% of the
diagrams of the push-out tests. Totally, a dataset contain- data was randomly devoted to the training phase and the
ing 2896 data points was collected. The most presumable remained 30% was assigned to the testing phase. To evalu-
parameters in the behavior of the tilted angle shear con- ate the performance of the models, statistical indicators
nectors including slip, length, height, width, thickness, and such as the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), determina-
inclination degree are adopted as the inputs of the models tion coefficient ( R2 ) , root mean squared error (RMSE),
and the shear strength (load) of the connectors is predicted mean absolute error (MAE) are used primarily. These per-
as the output. Table 5 shows the details of the input and formance metrics can be defined as below:
output variables. �∑ � �∑ � �∑ �
As mentioned previously, activation and membership
N N N
N O .P
i=1 i i
− O
i=1 i
. P
i=1 i
functions generally vary in the range of [− 1, 1] or [0, r = ��
∑N �∑ �2 � � ∑ �∑ �2 �
1]. Hence, these functions are more sensitive to the input N i=1 O2i −
N
O . N
N
P2
−
N
P
i=1 i i=1 i i=1 i
variables which are in these intervals. Therefore, the per-
formance of the AI models can be improved if a preproc- (17)
essing is conducted on the data. For this purpose, the data

Table 5  Input and output Input & output Name Minimum Maximum Average Standard
variables deviation

Input 1 Slip (mm) 0.00 10.59 3.70 2.64

Input 2 Length (mm) 50.00 100.00 56.72 17.05
Input 3 Inclination (deg) 112.50 135.00 120.20 10.68
Input 4 Height (mm) 60.00 100.00 75.31 14.60
Input 5 Width (mm) 60.00 100.00 75.31 14.60
Input 6 Thickness (mm) 6.00 10.00 7.53 1.46
Output Shear Strength (kN) 0.00 201.13 61.41 41.71

13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2099

�∑ � �� ��2 6 Results and discussion

N ̄ . Pi − P̄
Oi − O
i=1
R2 = ∑N � � � � (18)
̄ ∑N Pi − P̄ 6.1 System identification
i=1 Oi − O . i=1

√ A desirable AI model is the one that not only is as simple

√N
√∑ 1 ( )2 as possible but also contains useful information. Although
RMSE = √ Oi − Pi (19) considering all the presumable input variables in a model
N
i=1
may result in better performance of the model, it can
adversely increase the training time and complexity of the
1 ∑| model. Also, in many cases, AI models can show satisfy-
N
MAE = O − Pi ||, (20)
N i=1 | i ing performance even with less number of input variables.
Several methods have been recommended in the literature
where N is the number of training or testing samples; Oi and for identifying the most influencing subset of input vari-
Pi are observed and predicted values in the sample i  , respec- ables. For instance, one may refer to methods such as back-
tively; O
̄ and P̄ are also the mean observed and predicted ward elimination [71], Bayesian Information Criteria [72],
values, respectively. Akaike Information Criterion [73], and Mallow’s Coeffi-
To present the performance indicators such as RMSE cient [74]. However, AI techniques, on top of them ANFIS,
and MAE in the term of mean observed values ( O ̄  ), rela- can be also used in this regard. Unique features of ANFIS
tive root mean squared error (RRMSE) and relative mean in the creation of an initial fuzzy inference system (FIS)
absolute error (RMAE) can be also described in percentage makes it very practical in the case of system identification.
as following: For conducting system identification by ANFIS, all the pos-
sible subset combinations of input variables are initially
RMSE
RRMSE = × 100 (21) developed. Then, for each of the input combinations, the
Ō
performance of the ANFIS in the prediction of targets is
evaluated. For this purpose, different performance indi-
RMAE =
MAE
× 100. (22) ces can be used. Finally, the input combination will be the
̄
O most effective that can reach superior performance indices
Note that Eqs.  (17–22) are only based on the linear in comparison with other combinations. In this process,
relations between observed values ( O ) and predicted val- ANFIS is indeed employed to predict the targets in terms
ues ( P ). Therefore, they are only sensitive to outliers or of all the possible subset combinations of the input vari-
extreme values and the additive or proportional differences ables. Since ANFIS uses an initial FIS that has been almost
between the observed ( O ) and predicted ( P ) values cannot trained, system identification by ANFIS does not need con-
be easily seen [68]. To address this issue, Willmott’s index ducting a thorough training process and only one epoch
[69] ( 0 ≤ WI ≤ 1.0 ) and Nash−Sutcliffe coefficient [70] can be even enough for achieving this goal [75]. Therefore,
( −∞ ≤ ENS ≤ 1 ) can be defined as below: ANFIS provides a very fast and precise approach to identify
the most effective input variables.
� ∑N � �2 �
Oi − Pi In this study, six input variables have been considered
i=1
ENS = 1 − ∑ � � (23) as the most presumable parameters in the shear strength
N ̄ 2 of tilted angle connectors (see Table 5). Based on these
i=1 Oi − P
parameters, six models including different subsets of input
� ∑N � �2 � combinations with one to five input variables can be cre-
Oi − Pi
i=1
(24) ated and then, ANFIS is used for finding the most effective
WI = 1 − ∑N �� � + �O − O
� .
� 2
P
i=1 � i − ̄
O � � i
̄
� combinations of variables. For instance, in the case of the
model with two input variables, ANFIS only deals with
The performance of AI models also depends on the com- dual combinations of input variables and tries to determine
puter system and the software environment in which the the two variables whose combination leads to a more accu-
codes are developed. In this study, all the codes were written rate prediction. In this study, two membership functions
in MATLAB environment and no external compiler or tool- (MFs) of the type Gaussian bell-shaped was used in the
box was employed so that a reasonable comparison between developing of ANFIS. The initial FIS was created for 100
the models can be conducted. Moreover, a computer system epochs, while the ANFIS was trained for only one epoch.
with a processor of the type Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 HQ An initial step size of 0.1, a step size decrease rate of 0.1,
CPU @ 2.60 GHz 2.59 GHz and 16.0 GB RAM was used. and a step size increase rate of 1.5 were also considered.

13

2100 Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109

Fig. 10  Results of the system identification by ANFIS with: a one input variable; b two input variables; c three input variables; d four input vari-
ables; e five input variables

13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2101

Table 6  Details of the Models Inputs Output

six models with different
combinations of input variables Slip (mm) Length (mm) Inclina- Height (mm) Width (mm) Thick- Shear
tion (deg) ness strength
(mm) (kN)

M1 ✓ – – – – – ✓
M2 ✓ – ✓ – – – ✓
M3 ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – ✓
M4 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓
M5 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓
M6 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Table 7  Trial and error process Models ANN ELM ANFIS

in the term of RMSE to
determine the best architecture Neuron no. RMSE Neuron no. RMSE Cluster no. RMSE
of the AI models
Training Testing Training Testing Training Testing

M1 3 32.92 32.69 20 31.65 32.09 6 31.39 31.97

6 31.96 31.4 40 31.6 32.01 12 31.31 31.96
9 31.95 31.34 60 31.6 32.02 18 31.32 32.05
12 31.28 32.12 80 31.61 32.03 24 31.29 32
15 31.28 32.184 100 31.62 32.03 30 31.31 32.01
M2 3 23.94 23.66 20 23.83 23.76 6 23.75 23.58
6 23.51 23.38 40 23.73 23.55 12 23.45 23.37
9 23.54 23.34 60 23.48 23.41 18 23.37 23.33
12 23.35 23.47 80 23.67 23.41 24 23.38 23.37
15 23.36 23.39 100 23.69 23.46 30 23.3 23.94
M3 3 23.64 23.28 20 18.79 19.02 6 20.27 20.33
6 17.87 17.84 40 17.91 17.87 12 19.76 19.88
9 17.43 17.66 60 17.93 17.94 18 17.93 17.9
12 17.27 17.71 80 17.89 17.86 24 17.37 17.69
15 17.19 17.66 100 17.9 17.88 30 17.36 17.7
M4 6 7.02 8.73 20 23.21 25.27 6 17.54 20.32
12 4.59 7.48 40 7.92 8.75 12 11.29 13.9
18 3.91 7.13 60 6.23 6.94 18 8.94 9.6
24 3.26 6.84 80 6.1 9.13 24 4.52 6.44
30 3.62 6.98 100 5.78 9.56 30 5.51 14.74
M5 6 7.42 8.37 20 21.9 24.85 6 20.06 20.17
12 4.67 7.64 40 8 8.05 12 10.68 11.73
18 3.61 6.95 60 6.18 6.88 18 8.55 8.58
24 2.85 6.63 80 6.04 9.1 24 4.30 6.72
30 3.17 6.73 100 5.55 13.1 30 5.56 7.17
M6 6 7.41 9.37 20 20.02 21.12 6 22 22.65
12 5.05 7.91 40 7.04 8.64 12 15.04 16.05
18 3.1 6.75 60 6.88 7.17 18 7.6 9.17
24 2.49 6.48 80 6.52 6.66 24 4.18 6.58
30 3.03 6.67 100 5.15 7.88 30 5.14 12.93

To evaluate the performance of the ANFIS models in each Figure 10 shows the results of the system identification
combination of input variables, RMSE was used as a sta- by ANFIS. Totally, five subsets of input variables with
tistical indicator. one to five input(s) and 62 different combinations of input

13

2102 Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109

Table 8  Results of ANN in ANN

M1–M6 models
Model Phase r R2 RMSE MAE RRMSE (%) RMAE (%) NSE WI

M1 Training 0.657 0.432 31.408 24.976 51.331 40.819 0.432 0.765

Testing 0.643 0.414 31.994 25.800 51.671 41.666 0.413 0.757
M2 Training 0.828 0.685 23.372 16.523 38.198 27.003 0.685 0.900
Testing 0.828 0.685 23.454 16.620 37.879 26.841 0.685 0.901
M3 Training 0.907 0.823 17.524 12.029 28.640 19.658 0.823 0.949
Testing 0.905 0.819 17.779 12.110 28.713 19.558 0.819 0.947
M4 Training 0.996 0.993 3.484 1.670 5.693 2.730 0.993 0.998
Testing 0.986 0.973 6.946 2.062 11.218 3.330 0.972 0.993
M5 Training 0.997 0.993 3.370 1.640 5.507 2.681 0.993 0.998
Testing 0.987 0.973 6.829 2.065 11.029 3.336 0.973 0.993
M6 Training 0.998 0.996 2.783 1.415 4.549 2.313 0.996 0.999
Testing 0.988 0.976 6.551 1.657 10.581 2.676 0.975 0.994

Table 9  Results of ELM in ELM

M1-M6 models
Model Phase r R2 RMSE MAE RRMSE (%) RMAE (%) NSE WI

M1 Training 0.651 0.424 31.622 25.090 51.680 41.005 0.424 0.759

Testing 0.642 0.412 32.043 25.725 51.750 41.545 0.412 0.752
M2 Training 0.823 0.677 23.691 16.757 38.719 27.386 0.677 0.897
Testing 0.827 0.685 23.468 16.631 37.901 26.859 0.684 0.900
M3 Training 0.903 0.816 17.897 12.329 29.250 20.150 0.816 0.947
Testing 0.904 0.817 17.867 12.206 28.856 19.712 0.817 0.947
M4 Training 0.989 0.978 6.203 3.119 10.138 5.097 0.978 0.994
Testing 0.989 0.979 6.082 3.119 9.822 5.037 0.979 0.995
M5 Training 0.986 0.973 6.839 3.577 11.176 5.847 0.973 0.993
Testing 0.987 0.975 6.644 3.498 10.730 5.648 0.975 0.994
M6 Training 0.987 0.973 6.792 3.529 11.100 5.768 0.973 0.993
Testing 0.988 0.976 6.554 3.448 10.585 5.568 0.975 0.994

Table 10  Results of ANFIS in ANFIS

M1-M6 models
Model Phase r R2 RMSE MAE RRMSE (%) RMAE (%) NSE WI

M1 Training 0.660 0.435 31.315 24.841 51.179 40.597 0.435 0.768

Testing 0.644 0.414 31.989 25.720 51.662 41.538 0.414 0.758
M2 Training 0.828 0.685 23.393 16.532 38.232 27.018 0.685 0.900
Testing 0.829 0.688 23.353 16.547 37.716 26.723 0.687 0.902
M3 Training 0.909 0.827 17.327 11.760 28.318 19.219 0.827 0.951
Testing 0.907 0.822 17.624 11.850 28.462 19.138 0.822 0.948
M4 Training 0.994 0.988 4.528 2.399 7.401 3.920 0.988 0.997
Testing 0.988 0.976 6.445 2.676 10.409 4.322 0.976 0.994
M5 Training 0.995 0.989 4.303 2.214 7.032 3.618 0.989 0.997
Testing 0.987 0.974 6.728 2.482 10.866 4.009 0.974 0.993
M6 Training 0.995 0.990 4.185 2.313 6.840 3.780 0.990 0.997
Testing 0.988 0.975 6.580 2.614 10.627 4.222 0.975 0.994

13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2103
variables have been evaluated in both of the training and
testing phases. In each diagram, the input combinations have
been sorted from left to right in the term of RMSE. There-
fore, the input combination at the right side of each diagram
shows the best input combination with the lower value of
RMSE, while the input combination at the left side is the
worst one. As can be seen in all the diagrams, the values
of RMSE in the training and testing phases are very close
to each other. Therefore, no overfitting or underfitting can
be observed in the models and it reveals that the results of
ANFIS are highly reliable. Figure 10a shows concerned with
the subset of variables with only one input. As can be real-
ized in this diagram, the input 1 (slip) has shown the lowest
value of RMSE; thus, slip is the most influential parameter
on the shear strength of the tilted angle connectors. Fig-
ure 10b illustrates the subset combination containing two
input variables in which the combination of input 1 (slip)
and input 3 (degree of inclination) have been more effective.
Therefore, the inclination degree can be mentioned as the
second most influencing factor on the shear strength of tilted
angle connectors. Likewise, the best combinations of inputs
with three, four, and five variables can be seen in Fig. 10c–e,
respectively. Six different models of the best combinations
of the input variables can be created based on the ANFIS
results. Table 6 represents details of these models and the
input variables which have been considered in each of them.
Note that the last model (sixth model) contains all the input
variables for shear strength prediction.
6.2 Models development
Six different models of the most effective input combina-
tions (M1–M6) were created in the previous section. In this
study, three AI techniques including an artificial neural net-
work (ANN), an extreme learning machine (ELM), and an
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) are used
to predict the shear strength of tilted angle connectors. The
performance of these techniques significantly depends on the
architecture of the model and its involving parameters; thus,
these factors should be determined precisely. In this inves-
tigation, a trial and error process is employed to determine
the best architecture of the models.
To develop ANN models, different architectures with one
and two hidden layer(s) were tried in each of the M1–M6
models. It was seen that the architectures with one hidden
layer are simpler for tuning and they can culminate in bet-
ter performance indices. Therefore, a single hidden layer
architecture was selected in all the models. To determine
the number of neurons in the hidden layer, different numbers
of neurons were tried and it was observed that considering
9 neurons in the hidden layer of M1–M3 models, and 24
neurons in the hidden layer of M4–M6 models lead to lower
values of RMSE. To train ANNs, the Levenberg−Marquardt
algorithm (LMA) was used as a backpropagation (BP) algo-
rithm, since it is often the fastest BP algorithm in the train-
ing phase [76, 77].
ELM algorithm only deals with the single-layer feed-for-
ward network (SLFN); thus, the only parameter that needs to
be determined in the ELM is the number of neurons in the
SLFN. To achieve this goal, different numbers of neurons
were tried and the value of RMSE as a statistical indicator
was evaluated. It was seen that considering the number of
60 neurons in M1–M5 models and 80 neurons in the M6
model culminates in lower values of RMSE in the testing
phase. Thus, these numbers of neurons were considered in
the SLFN architecture.
To develop the ANFIS models, membership functions
(MFs) of the type Takagi-Sugeno were used. The default
hybrid algorithm of ANFIS was also employed in the train-
ing process. To determine the best architecture of ANFIS,
different number of MFs for each input variable (number of
clusters) were evaluated. It was concluded that the number
of 12 MFs in M1, 18 MFs in M2, and 24 MFs in M3–M6
models result in lower values of RMSE in the testing phase.
It was also seen that an initial FIS with a degree of two and
100 epochs can lead to establishing models with better per-
formance indices. A summary of the trails and error process
in each of the AI techniques has been represented in Table 7.
6.3 Comparison of results
After creating the models and determining the optimum
architectures, the models M1-M6 were trained by ANN,
ELM, and ANFIS techniques. Tables 8, 9, and 10, respec-
tively, show the obtained performance indices from ANN,
ELM, and ANFIS in the training and testing phases of
the M1–M6 models. As can be seen in these tables, the
performance of the models have been improved from the
M1 to M6 model so that the performance indices such as
r, R2, WI, and NSE have increased (got closer values to
one), while performance indicators such as RMSE, MAE,
RRMSE, and RMAE have decreased (got closer values to
zero). This shows that enhancing the number of input vari-
ables causes that all the AI techniques have more accurate
predictions. However, if the performance indices after the
model M4 are evaluated, it can be seen that the improve-
ment in the performance indices is not significant. This
implies that the behavior of tilted C-shaped angle con-
nectors can be precisely predicted by even only four input
variables and considering all the six input variables in
the perdition is not necessary. By referring to Table 6 and
checking the input variables of the model M4, it can be
concluded that the most detriment parameters in the load-
slip behavior of tilted angle connectors are slip, length,
inclination degree, and height. The other important point
13

2104
Fig. 11  Scatter diagrams of the AI models in the training phase:
a ANN-M1; b ELM-M1; c ANFIS-M1; d ANN-M2; e ELM-M2; f
ANIFS-M2; g ANN-M3; h ELM-M3; i ANFIS-M3; j ANN-M4; k
is that if all the combinations of input variables in Fig. 10d,
which are concerned with model M4, are observed, it can
be concluded that the RMSE value is very lower in models
in which three parameters of slip (input 1), length (input
2), and inclination degree (input 3) are present. This
reveals that these parameters are critical in the behavior
13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109
ELM-M4; l ANFIS-M4; m ANN-M5; n ELM-M5; o ANFIS-M5; p
ANN-M6; q ELM-M6; r ANFIS-M6
of tilted angle connectors, while height (input 4) can be
even replaced with width (input 5) and thickness (input 6)
without any considerable change in the value of RMSE.
To better compare the results, scatter diagrams of the
training and testing phase of the M1-M6 models are illus-
trated in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. These figures have
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2105
Fig. 11  (continued)
six rows of diagrams that each row represents a model. For
instance, the diagrams in the first row are related to the
M1 model. Also, each column is concerned with an AI
technique. In each diagram of these figures, the horizontal
axis is the observed shear strength in the experiment and
the vertical axis represents the predicted shear strength by
the AI technique. In these diagrams, if the observed values
in experiments are predicted without error, the data points
should be placed on the blue line with equation y = x . As
can be seen in Fig. 11, all the AI techniques had a very close
competition with each other and no significant difference
could be seen in each of the models. The other point is that
from the model M1 to M6, the data points have concentrated
along the blue line (line with 100% agreement) more com-
pactly and the values of R2 also vindicate it. As discussed
previously, after the model M4, no significant change can
be seen in the performance of the models. Among the dia-
grams, the best performance in the training phase belongs to
the ANN in model M6 with the R2 value of 0.996. Figure 12
also illustrates the testing phase of the models. As can be
realized, this figure is highly similar to Fig. 11 and it shows
that all the AI techniques have been able to repeat their
excellent performance in the testing phase too. Comparing
all the diagrams in Fig. 12, it can be seen that the best per-
formance indices in the testing phase have been obtained in
the case of ELM and model M4 with an R2 value of 0.979.
The other parameter of the models which can be examined
is the time that models required for training. As described
before, the codes were run in the same computer system
and no external compiler was used; thus, all the AI tech-
niques had the same conditions and they could be compared.
Table 11 illustrates the required time for each model. As can
be seen, as the number of input variables has increased, the
models have required more time for training. Also, ELM has
needed less time comparing with ANFIS and ANN models.
7 Conclusion
In this study, a soft computing approach was used to esti-
mate the shear strength of tilted angle shear connectors.
For this purpose, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques
and machine learning methods such as an adaptive neuro-
fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), and extreme learning
machine (ELM), and an artificial neural network (ANN)
were employed. To generate the required data for the AI
techniques, eight push-out tests were conducted on the
specimens of tilted angle shear connectors with different
geometrical properties. Slip, length, height, inclination
degree, width, and thickness were adopted as the inputs
and shear strength was predicted as the output. To identify
the most influencing parameters on the shear strength of
13

2106
Fig. 12  Scatter diagrams of the AI models in the testing phase: a
ANN-M1; b ELM-M1; c ANFIS-M1; d ANN-M2; e ELM-M2; f
ANIFS-M2; g ANN-M3; h ELM-M3; i ANFIS-M3; j ANN-M4; k
the titled angle connectors, a system identification was
accomplished by ANFIS. Six different models of the best
input combinations were created. The performance of
ANN, ANFIS, and ELM was evaluated by different statis-
tical performance indicators in each of the models. Also,
the required time for training of the AI technique was
13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109
ELM-M4; l ANFIS-M4; m ANN-M5; n ELM-M5; o ANFIS-M5; p
ANN-M6; q ELM-M6; r ANFIS-M6
recorded. The following conclusions can be drawn from
the current paper:
• All the modes of failure in the specimens except for one
specimen were of the type of concrete crushing−split-
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2107

Fig. 12  (continued)

Table 11  Required time for the • It was observed that increasing the number of input
Model Time (s)
training of the models variables can improve the performance of the AI
ANN ELM ANFIS techniques and enhance the required time for train-
M1 7.36 1.03 23.15 ing. However, after the model with four parameters,
M2 8.14 1.35 32.91 no significant change in the performance indices was
M3 9.13 1.48 55.28 seen. Thus, considering four parameters including slip,
M4 14.35 1.53 62.32 inclination degree, length, and height are enough to
M5 16.98 1.89 89.35 predict the shear strength of connectors.
M6 19.47 2.06 109.12 • ANFIS, ELM, and ANN showed a very competitive
performance and all of them could predict targets prop-
erly. However, ELM, with a slight difference, had the
ting. Therefore, this mode of failure is more likely to best performance in the testing phase. Also, its training
occur in the tilted angle shear connectors. time was much lower than that of the ANN and ANFIS.
• In the tilted connectors that both legs of the connector Hence, employing ELM seems more practical in the
were welded, failure occurred abruptly and less slip case of shear strength prediction.
was sustained at the peak load. However, these speci-
mens could meet more shear demands. Therefore, both
legs connection increases shear strength while reduces
the ductility of the connector. References
• Results of the system identification by ANFIS showed
that slip is the most influencing parameter on the shear 1. Mafipour MS, Tatlari S, Ghiami Azad AR, Shahverdi M, Moham-
strength of connectors. Moreover, in the case of dual madi S (2019) Fatigue behavior of headed stud shear connectors
in steel-concrete composite bridge girders. In: 3rd International
combinations of input variables, slip and degree of conference on applied research in structural engineering and con-
inclination were determined as the most effective ones. structional management, 25–26 June 2019, Tehran, Iran
Thus, the degree of inclination is the second most influ- 2. Ghiami Azad AR, MS Mafipour, S Tatlari (2018) Fatigue behavior
ential parameter in the shear strength of tilted angle of shear connectors in steel-concrete beams with partial interac-
tion. In: 3rd International conference on steel & structure, Tehran,
connectors. Iran, 11–12 December 2018

13

2108
3. Mafipour MS, Homayoun FA, Tatlari S, Ghiami Azad AR (2019)
Closed-form formulations in composite beams based on partially-
composite behavior. In: 3rd International conference on applied
research in structural engineering and constructional management,
Tehran, Iran, 25–26 June 2019
4. Ghiami Azad AR, Mafipour MS, Tatlari S (2018) A novel method for
linear analysis of partially-composite beams. In: 3rd International
conference on steel & structure, Tehran, Iran, 11–12 December 2018
5. Wei X, Shariati M, Zandi Y, Pei S, Jin Z, Gharachurlu S, Abdul-
lahi M, Tahir M, Khorami M (2018) Distribution of shear force in
perforated shear connectors. Steel Compos Struct 27(3):389–399
6. Tahmasbi F, Maleki S, Shariati M, Ramli Sulong NH, Tahir MM
(2016) shear capacity of C-shaped and L-shaped angle shear con-
nectors. PLoS ONE 11(8):e0156989
7. Khorramian K, Maleki S, Shariati M, Ramli Sulong NH
(2015) Behavior of tilted angle shear connectors. PLoS ONE
10(12):0144288
8. Shariati M, Ramli Sulong NH, Suhatril M, Shariati A, Arabnejad
MMK, Sinaei H (2012) Behaviour of C-shaped angle shear con-
nectors under monotonic and fully reversed cyclic loading: an
experimental study. Mater Des 41:67–73
9. Shariati M, Toghroli A, Jalali A, Ibrahim Z (2017) Assessment
of stiffened angle shear connector under monotonic and fully
reversed cyclic loading. In: 5th International conference on
advances in civil, structural and mechanical engineering—CSM
2017, Zurich, Switzerland
10. Paknahad M, Shariati M, Sedghi Y, Bazzaz M, Khorami M (2018)
Shear capacity equation for channel shear connectors in steel-
concrete composite beams. Steel Compos Struct 28(4):483–494
11. Shariati Mahdi, Ramli Sulong NH, Suhatril Meldi, Ali Shariati MM,
Khanouki Arabnejad, Sinaei Hamid (2013) Comparison of behaviour
between channel and angle shear connectors under monotonic and
fully reversed cyclic loading. Constr Build Mater 38:582–593
12. Rao SN (1970) Composite construction-tests on small scale shear
connectors. The Institute of Engineers, Australia. Civil Engineer-
ing Transactions, April
13. Hiroshi Y, Kiyomia O (1987) Load carrying capacity of shear con-
nectors made of shape steel in steel-concrete composite members.
Structures division subaqueous tunnels and pipelines laboratory,
1987. PARI Techinical Note 0595
14. Ciutina AL, Stratan A (2008) Cyclic performances of shear con-
nectors. ASCE
15. Choi SM, Tateishi K, Uchida D, Asano K, Kobayashi K (2008)
Fatigue strength of angle shape shear connector used in steel-
concrete composite slab. Int J Steel Struct 8(3):199–204
16. Choi SM (2011) Fatigue resistance of angle shape shear connector
used in steel-concrete composite slab. 2011, Ph.D. thesis, Gradu-
ate School of Engineering of Nagoya University, Japan
17. Fukazawa K, Sakai M, Sudou N, Kobayashi K (2002) Fatigue
durability of steel-concrete composite slab, MELAB and appli-
cation to continuous composite steel girder bridge. Mitsui Zosen
Tech Rev 6:8–18
18. Saidi T, Furuuchi H, Ueda T (2008) The transferred shear force-
relative displacement relationship of the shear connector in steel-
concrete sandwich beam and its model. Doboku Gakkai Ronbun-
shuu E 64(1):122–141
19. Ros S, Shima H (2009) A new beam type test method for load-slip
relationship of L-shape shear connector. In: The 8th symposium
on research and application of hybrid and composite structures,
vol 18, pp 1–8
20. Khalilian M (2013) The assessment of shear capacity of angle
shear connectors. Sharif University of Technology
21. Shariati M, Shariati A, Sulong NR, Suhatril M, Khanouki MA
(2014) Fatigue energy dissipation and failure analysis of angle
shear connectors embedded in high strength concrete. Eng Fail
Anal 41:124–134
13
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109
22. Shariati Mahdi, Ramli Sulong NH, Arabnejad Khanouki MM,
Mehrdad M (2011) Shear resistance of channel shear connectors
in plain, reinforced and lightweight concrete. Scientific Research
and Essays. 6(4):977–983
23. Shariati M, Ramli Sulong NH, Sinaei H, Khanouki A, Mehdi M,
Shafigh P (2011) Behavior of channel shear connectors in normal
and light weight aggregate concrete (experimental and analytical
study). Adv Mater Res 168:2303–2307
24. Shariati M, Ramli Sulong NH, Arabnejad Khanouki MM, Sha-
riati A (2011) Experimental and numerical investigations of
channel shear connectors in high strength concrete. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 2011 world congress on advances in structural
engineering and mechanics (ASEM’11+), Seoul, South Korea
25. Shariati M, Ramli Sulong N, Suhatril M, Shariati A, Arabnejad
Khanouki M, Sinaei H (2012) Fatigue energy dissipation and
failure analysis of channel shear connector embedded in the
lightweight aggregate concrete in composite bridge girders. In
5th International conference on engineering failure analysis 1–4
July 2012, Hilton Hotel, The Hague, The Netherlands
26. Shariati A, Sulong NR, Suhatril M, Shariati M (2012) Investi-
gation of channel shear connectors for composite concrete and
steel T-beam. Int J Phys Sci 7(11):1828–1831
27. Nasrollahi S, Maleki S, Shariati M, Marto A, Khorami M (2018)
Investigation of pipe shear connectors using push out test. Steel
Compos Struct 27(5):537–543
28. Shariati M, Tahir MM, Wee TC, Shah SN, Jalali A, Abdullahi
MA, Khorami M (2018) Experimental investigations on mono-
tonic and cyclic behavior of steel pallet rack connections. Eng
Fail Anal 85:149–166
29. Shariati M, Sulong NR, Shariati A, Khanouki MA (2015)
Behavior of V-shaped angle shear connectors: experimental
and parametric study. Mater Struct 49(9):3909–3926
30. Shahabi S, Sulong N, Shariati M, Shah S (2016) Performance
of shear connectors at elevated temperatures-A review. Steel
Compos Struct 20(1):185–203
31. Toghroli A, Mohammadhassani M, Suhatril M, Shariati M,
Ibrahim Z (2014) Prediction of shear capacity of channel
shear connectors using the ANFIS model. Steel Compos Struct
17(5):623–639
32. Sedghi Y, Zandi Y, Toghroli A, Safa M, Mohamad ET, Khorami
M, Wakil K (2018) Application of ANFIS technique on perfor-
mance of C and L shaped angle shear connectors. Smart Struct
Syst 22(3):335–340
33. Trung NT, Shahgoli AF, Zandi Y, Shariati M, Wakil K, Safa
M, Khorami M (2019) Moment-rotation prediction of precast
beam-to-column connections using extreme learning machine.
Struct Eng Mech 70(5):639–647
34. Shariati M, Trung NT, Wakil K, Mehrabi P, Safa M, Khorami M
(2019) Moment-rotation estimation of steel rack connection using
extreme learning machine. Steel Compos Struct 31(5):427–435
35. Gao W, Karbasi M, Derakhsh AM, Jalili A (2018) Development
of a novel soft-computing framework for the simulation aims: a
case study. Eng Comput 35(1):1–8
36. Sharma LK, Singh R, Umrao RK, Sharma KM, Singh TN (2017)
Evaluating the modulus of elasticity of soil using soft comput-
ing system. Eng Comput 33(3):497–507
37. Katebi J, Shoaei-parchin M, Shariati M, Trung NT, Khorami M
(2019) Developed comparative analysis of metaheuristic optimiza-
tion algorithms for optimal active control of structures. Eng Comput
1–20
38. Ma CK, Lee YH, Awang AZ, Omar W, Mohammad S, Liang
M (2019) Artificial neural network models for FRP-repaired
concrete subjected to pre-damaged effects. Neural Comput Appl
31(3):711–717
39. Shariati M, Mafipour MS, Mehrabi P, Bahadori A, Zandi Y,
Salih MN, Nguyen H, Dou J, Song X, Poi-Ngian S (2019)
Engineering with Computers (2021) 37:2089–2109 2109
Application of a hybrid artificial neural network-particle swarm
optimization (ANN-PSO) model in behavior prediction of chan-
nel shear connectors embedded in normal and high-strength
concrete. Appl Sci 9(24):5534
40. Shariati M, Mafipour MS, Mehrabi P, Zandi Y, Dehghani D,
Bahadori A, Shariati A, Trung NT, Salih MN, Poi-Ngian S (2019)
Application of extreme learning machine (ELM) and genetic pro-
gramming (GP) to design steel-concrete composite floor systems
at elevated temperatures. Steel Compos Struct 33(3):319
41. Khademi F, Akbari M, Jamal SM, Nikoo M (2017) Multiple lin-
ear regression, artificial neural network, and fuzzy logic predic-
tion of 28 days compressive strength of concrete. Front Struct
Civil Eng 11(1):90–99
42. Toghroli A, Suhatril M, Ibrahim Z, Safa M, Shariati M, Sham-
shirband S (2018) Potential of soft computing approach for
evaluating the factors affecting the capacity of steel–concrete
composite beam. J Intell Manuf 29(8):1793–1801
43. Naderpour H, Mirrashid M (2019) Moment capacity estimation
of spirally reinforced concrete columns using ANFIS. Complex
Intell Syst 5(2):1–11
44. Basarir H, Elchalakani M, Karrech A (2019) The prediction of
ultimate pure bending moment of concrete-filled steel tubes by
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Neural Com-
put Appl 31(2):1239–1252
45. ASTM C150 (2012) Standard specification of portland cement.
ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA
46. ASTM C39 (2005) Standard test method for compressive strength
of cylindrical concrete specimens. In: Annual book of ASTM
standards
47. Shariati A, Shariati M, Sulong NR, Suhatril M, Khanouki MA,
Mahoutian M (2014) Experimental assessment of angle shear con-
nectors under monotonic and fully reversed cyclic loading in high
strength concrete. Constr Build Mater 52:276–283
48. Shariati M, Sulong NR, Khanouki MA (2012) Experimental
assessment of channel shear connectors under monotonic and
fully reversed cyclic loading in high strength concrete. Mater Des
34:325–331
49. Davoodnabi SM, Mirhosseini SM, Shariati M (2019) Behavior of
steel-concrete composite beam using angle shear connectors at fire
condition. Steel Compos Struct 30(2):141–147
50. Shariati M, Sulong NR, Shariati A, Kueh AB (2016) Compara-
tive performance of channel and angle shear connectors in high
strength concrete composites: an experimental study. Constr Build
Mater 120:382–392
51. Priddy KL, Keller PE (2005) Artificial neural networks: an intro-
duction, vol 68. SPIE press, Bellingham
52. Amiri M, Amnieh HB, Hasanipanah M, Khanli LM (2016) A new
combination of artificial neural network and K-nearest neighbors
models to predict blast-induced ground vibration and air-overpres-
sure. Eng Comput 32(4):631–644
53. Jain AK, Mao J, Mohiuddin KM (1996) Artificial neural networks:
a tutorial. Computer 29(3):31–44
54. Moosazadeh S, Namazi E, Aghababaei H, Marto A, Mohamad
H, Hajihassani M (2018) Prediction of building damage induced
by tunnelling through an optimized artificial neural network. Eng
Comput 35(2):1–13
55. Prasad BR, Eskandari H, Reddy BV (2009) Prediction of com-
pressive strength of SCC and HPC with high volume fly ash using
ANN. Constr Build Mater 23(1):117–128
56. Karlik B, Olgac AV (2011) Performance analysis of various acti-
vation functions in generalized MLP architectures of neural net-
works. Int J Artif Intell Expert Syst 1(4):111–122
57. Li J, Cheng J-H, Shi J-Y, Huang F (2012) Brief introduction of
back propagation (BP) neural network algorithm and its improve-
ment. In: Advances in computer science and information engi-
neering, 2012, Springer. pp 553–558
58. Mansouri I, Shariati M, Safa M, Ibrahim Z, Tahir M, Petković
D (2017) Analysis of influential factors for predicting the shear
strength of a V-shaped angle shear connector in composite
beams using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy technique. J Intell Manuf
30(3):1–11
59. Safa M, Shariati M, Ibrahim Z, Toghroli A, Baharom SB, Nor NM,
Petkovic D (2016) Potential of adaptive neuro fuzzy inference sys-
tem for evaluating the factors affecting steel-concrete composite
beam’s shear strength. Steel Compos Struct 21(3):679–688
60. Jang J-S (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference
system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23(3):665–685
61. Petković D, Ćojbašić Ž, Nikolić V, Shamshirband S, Kiah MLM,
Anuar NB, Wahab AWA (2014) Adaptive neuro-fuzzy maximal
power extraction of wind turbine with continuously variable trans-
mission. Energy 64:868–874
62. Petković D, Issa M, Pavlović ND, Pavlović NT, Zentner L (2012)
Adaptive neuro-fuzzy estimation of conductive silicone rubber
mechanical properties. Expert Syst Appl 39(10):9477–9482
63. Mayilvaganan MK, Naidu K (2011) Comparison of member-
ship functions in adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system
(ANFIS) for the prediction of groundwater level of a watershed.
J Computer Appl Res Dev 1:35–42
64. Huang G-B, Zhu Q-Y, Siew C-K (2006) Extreme learn-
ing machine: theory and applications. Neurocomputing
70(1):489–501
65. Huang G-B (2003) Learning capability and storage capacity of
two-hidden-layer feedforward networks. IEEE Trans Neural Net-
works 14(2):274–281
66. Al-Shamiri AK, Kim JH, Yuan T-F, Yoon YS (2019) Modeling
the compressive strength of high-strength concrete: an extreme
learning approach. Constr Build Mater 208:204–219
67. Armaghani DJ, Hasanipanah M, Amnieh HB, Bui DT, Mehrabi
P, Khorami M (2019) Development of a novel hybrid intelligent
model for solving engineering problems using GS-GMDH algo-
rithm. Engineering with Computers 3:1–13
68. Legates DR, McCabe GJ Jr (1999) Evaluating the use of “good-
ness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model vali-
dation. Water Resour Res 35(1):233–241
69. Willmott CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr
2(2):184–194
70. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through
conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J Hydrol
10(3):282–290
71. Mao KZ (2004) Orthogonal forward selection and backward
elimination algorithms for feature subset selection. IEEE Trans
Syst Man Cybern Part B (Cybern) 34(1):629–634
72. Chen J, Chen Z (2008) Extended Bayesian information cri-
teria for model selection with large model spaces. Biometrika
95(3):759–771
73. Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M, Kitagawa G (1986) Akaike information
criterion statistics. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, p 81
74. Mallows CL (1973) Some comments on C p. Technometrics
15(4):661–675
75. Shariati M., Mafipour MS, Haido JH, Yousif ST, Toghroli A,
Trung NT, Shariati A (2020) Identification of the most influencing
parameters on the properties of corroded concrete beams using an
Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS). Steel Compos
Struct 34(1):155–170
76. Lourakis MI (2005) A brief description of the Levenberg-Mar-
quardt algorithm implemented by levmar. Foundation of Research
and Technology 4(1):1–6
77. Moré JJ (1978) The Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm: implemen-
tation and theory. In: Numerical analysis, Springer. pp 105–116
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13