Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Soft Computing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

Prediction of lateral connement coefcient in reinforced

concrete columns using neural network simulation
Sema Noyan Alacal a , Bulent Akbas b , Bilge Doran a,
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Yldz Technical University, Davutpasa Campus, 34210 Esenler-Istanbul, Turkey
b
Department of Earthquake and Structural Engineering, Gebze Institute of Technology, 41400 Gebze-Kocaeli, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an application of Neural Network (NN) simulation in civil engineering science. The
Received 27 April 2009 connement degree for conned concrete has been investigated by using a NN analysis as an alternative
Received in revised form 23 August 2010 approach. To accurately predict the behavior of a conned concrete, it is important to understand the
Accepted 26 October 2010
connement degree and its individual components. For the purpose of investigating connement effects,
Available online 3 November 2010
three empirical equations as a function of various parameters and an experimental work existing in the
literature were considered in this study. However, these analytical models are time consuming to use.
Keywords:
Therefore, there is still the need to develop simple but accurate method for determining the connement
Neural network
Connement coefcient
coefcient. In this context, the NN algorithm has been established, in order to validate these empirical
Volumetric ratio equations proposed for the connement coefcient. The approach adapted in this study was shown to
Reinforced concrete columns be capable of providing accurate estimates of lateral connement coefcient, Ks by using the six design
Ductility parameters. Finally, comparison with other empirical equations proposed for the lateral connement
coefcient illustrates the validity of the proposed algorithm.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction under monotonic axial compression experimentally to examine

Design procedures for reinforced concrete (R/C) structures often
require ductile behavior. The ductile behavior can be provided
by conning the concrete with the lateral or spiral reinforce-
ment. Lateral or spiral reinforcements in R/C columns play an
important role in enhancing the strength and ductility. The mag-
nitude of the increase in strength of the R/C columns can be
dened by a connement coefcient, Ks . For this purpose, differ-
ent behavior models are proposed to describe the connement
degree of conned concrete according to various parameters by
many researchers. Kent and Park [1] proposed a stressstrain curve
for concrete conned by rectangular steel hoops. This curve is rep-
resented by a second degree parabola up to maximum stress; a
linear falling branch and a horizontal linear portion with stress con-
stant at 0.2 of the maximum stress. The slope of the linear falling
branch was found to depend on the concrete cylinder strength,
the ratio of width of conned concrete to spacing of hoops and
the ratio of with of conned concrete to spacing of hoops and the
ratio of volume of hoop steel to volume of concrete core. Park
et al. [2], modied the stressstrain relation suggested by Kent
and Park [1]. Sheik and Uzumeri [3] tested 24 short tied columns
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 532 296 50 02; fax: +90 212 383 51 33.
E-mail address: doranbilge@gmail.com (B. Doran).
the impact of various parameters on the behavior of tied columns.
The distribution of longitudinal steel, the column perimeter, the
tie conguration, the amount of lateral connement and longi-
tudinal column steel were the main variables. Also, Sheik and
Uzumeri [4] carried out a complete stressstrain curve for con-
ned concrete based on the experimental results. In this model,
they showed that the distribution of longitudinal steel and smaller
tie spacing result in higher strength and ductility of concrete. Saat-
cioglu and Razvi [5,6] proposed a stressstrain relationship for
conned concrete. The relationship consists of a parabola for the
ascending branch, and a linear portion for the descending branch.
The descending branch is dened as the strain corresponding to
85% of the peak stress. A constant residual strength has been
assumed at 20% strength level beyond the descending branch. The
parameters of the analytical model have been established from
a large volume of experimental data, including poorly conned
and well-conned concrete. The model has been compared with
a large number of column tested experimentally. Chung et al. [7]
proposed a stressstrain relation of conned concrete from an
empirical study of 65 columns. The strength of concrete, the vol-
umetric ratio, the connement type of rectilinear ties, and the
distribution of longitudinal bars were the experimental parame-
ters.
In order to validate the different behavior models proposed
by the researchers mentioned above, the Neural Network (NN)

1568-4946/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2010.10.013
2646 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655

Table 1
Experimental results for lateral connement coefcient adapted from Chung et al. [7].

Num. Specimen fc (MPa) m (mm) fyh (MPa) s (mm) s (mm) s Ks (exp.)

1 L8S5.5S10 19.6 8 550 6 100 0.007 1.06

2 L8S5.5E10 19.6 8 550 8 100 0.012 1.10
3 L8S5.5S5.5 19.6 8 550 6 55 0.012 1.26
4 L8S5.5E5.5 19.6 8 550 8 55 0.022 1.58
5 L8S5.5S3 19.6 8 550 6 30 0.022 1.76
6 L8S5.5E3 19.6 8 550 8 30 0.041 2.18
7 L12S5.5E3 20.1 12 550 8 30 0.042 2.10
8 L12S5.5E5.5 20.1 12 550 8 55 0.022 1.45
9 L12S5.5E10 20.1 12 550 8 100 0.012 1.03
10 L8C5.5F3 21.1 8 550 5 30 0.023 2.56
11 L8D5.5S5 21.1 8 550 6 50 0.023 2.21
12 L8D5.5S4 21.1 8 550 6 40 0.029 2.00
13 L12R5.5E7 21.1 12 550 8 70 0.040 2.60
14 L0S7S3 21.6 0 700 6 30 0.023 1.78
15 L4S7S3 21.6 4 700 6 30 0.023 1.84
16 L8S7S3 21.6 8 700 6 30 0.023 1.58
17 L8C7S4.5 21.6 8 700 6 45 0.023 1.78
18 L12S9E3 20.1 12 900 8 30 0.042 2.10
19 L12S9E5.5 20.1 12 900 8 55 0.022 1.40
20 L12S9E10 20.1 12 900 8 100 0.012 1.03
21 L8D13S4 24 8 1300 6 40 0.029 2.30
22 L8D13E4 24 8 1300 8 40 0.051 3.60
23 M8S5.5S10 38.3 8 550 6 100 0.007 1.06
24 M8S5.5E10 38.3 8 550 8 100 0.012 1.06
25 M8S5.5S5.5 38.3 8 550 6 55 0.012 1.25
26 M8S5.5E5.5 38.3 8 550 8 55 0.022 1.30
27 M8S5.5S3 38.3 8 550 6 30 0.022 1.41
28 M8S5.5E3 38.3 8 550 8 30 0.041 1.59
29 M12S5.5E3 40.2 12 550 8 30 0.042 1.60
30 M12S5.5E5.5 40.2 12 550 8 55 0.022 1.31
31 M12S5.5E10 40.2 12 550 8 100 0.012 1.13
32 M8C5.5F3 34.8 8 550 5 30 0.023 1.93
33 M8D5.5S5 34.8 8 550 6 50 0.023 1.96
34 M8D5.5S4 40.2 8 550 6 40 0.029 1.90
35 M12R5.5E7 34.8 12 550 8 70 0.040 2.16
36 M12S9E3 40.2 12 900 8 30 0.042 1.70
37 M12S9E5.5 40.2 12 900 8 55 0.022 1.35
38 M12S9E10 40.2 12 900 8 100 0.012 1.24
39 M8D13S4 40.2 8 1300 6 40 0.029 2.00
40 M8D13E4 40.2 8 1300 8 40 0.051 2.30
41 H8S5.5S10 50.5 8 550 6 100 0.007 0.93
42 H8S5.5E10 50.5 8 550 8 100 0.012 0.81
43 H8S5.5S5.5 50.5 8 550 6 55 0.012 1.06
44 H8S5.5E5.5 50.5 8 550 8 55 0.022 1.14
45 H8S5.5S3 50.5 8 550 6 30 0.022 1.24
46 H8S5.5E3 50.5 8 550 8 30 0.041 1.41
47 H12S5.5E3 50.5 12 550 8 30 0.042 1.40
48 H12S5.5E5.5 54.4 12 550 8 55 0.022 1.21
49 H12S5.5E10 54.4 12 550 8 100 0.012 1.05
50 H8C5.5F3 54.4 8 550 5 30 0.023 1.46
51 H8D5.5S5 56.4 8 550 6 50 0.023 1.57
52 H12R5.5E7 56.4 12 550 8 70 0.040 1.71
53 H0S7S3 56.4 0 700 6 30 0.023 1.35
54 H4S7S3 47.5 4 700 6 30 0.023 1.60
55 H8S7S3 47.5 8 700 6 30 0.023 1.27
56 H8C7S4.5 47.5 8 700 6 45 0.023 1.61
57 H12S9E3 47.5 12 900 8 30 0.042 1.33
58 H12S9E5.5 54.4 12 900 8 55 0.022 1.15
59 H12S9E10 54.4 12 900 8 100 0.012 1.03

algorithm has been established. The NN model was employed to
develop and test using the experimental work carried out by Chung
et al. [7].
Neural Network (NN) modeling has been widely used as an
alternative approach for establishing nonlinear empirical equa-
tions in engineering problems for the last two decades engineering
[821].
Some of the major advantages of a NN model can be listed as: (1)
NNs learn and generalize from examples and experience to produce
meaningful solutions to the problems even in cases where the input
data contains error or is incomplete; (2) NNs are able to adapt solu-
tions over time and to compensate for changing circumstances; (3)
NNs can evaluate theoretical, experimental, or empirical data based
on good and reliable past experience or a combination of these [22].
In this study, a Neural Network (NN) model has been established
to predict the lateral connement coefcient of R/C columns. For
this purpose, a NN model was constructed to estimate the lateral
connement coefcient (Ks ) in R/C rectangular columns. The multi-
layered feed-forward NN model was developed and tested with the
back-propagation algorithm to assess Ks .
 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655 2647

bcy

bcx
(a)
Actual
Average
Equivalent fl
k2fl

(b)
Fig. 1. Passive connement pressure: (a) variation of connement pressure with reinforcement arrangement; (b) equivalent uniform pressure.

2. Assessment of the experimental and analytical works (1) Park et al. [2], proposed the modied stressstrain relation in
conned concrete and observed a new relation for passive con-
2.1. Experimental work for the lateral connement coefcient nement controlled by Ks . However, the location of longitudinal
reinforcement and lateral reinforcement arrangements were
Chung et al. [7] proposed a stressstrain relation of conned not considered. An empirical equation can be written as
concrete from an empirical study of 65 columns and investigated
s fyh
the connement effects of concrete columns by lateral ties. Test Ks = 1 + (1)
columns have 200 mm square cross-section, 600 mm high, 17 mm fc
concrete cover thickness, and 12 mm longitudinal reinforced diam- In this equation, s can be expressed by
eter. In this experimental work, L, M, and H denote the compressive
strength of concrete of 20, 39, and 54 MPa, respectively, and P rep- Ash s
s = (2)
resents the plain concrete column without any bars. In this study, sbc dc
Chung et al.s [7] experimental data are used to employ the NN where bc and dc are the width and depth of the conned core
model. Some necessary data set are chosen from their experiments measured to outside of ties, respectively, and s is the center to
and given in Table 1. Here, the compressive strength of concrete center spacing of ties. s is the total length of the lateral ties.
fc , number of longitudinal bars m, yield strength of lateral tie fyh , (2) Sheikh and Uzumeri [4] accomplished an experimental study
diameter of lateral ties h , spacing between lateral ties s, and vol- on the stressstrain relation and connement, in their study,
umetric ratio of lateral ties s , and nally the lateral connement
coefcient Ks are given.
Input Layer
X1
2.2. Analytical proposals for the lateral connement coefcient
Hidden Layer
X2 1
The magnitude of the increase in strength of the R/C columns
can be dened by a connement coefcient. In the literature, dif-
ferent analytical models for the connement degree of conned
2
concrete as a function of various parameters are proposed by many Output Layer
researchers [2,4,6]. These empirical equations for lateral conne-
ment coefcient, Ks are given below. i
Xi Y

Table 2 m
Design parameters.

Design Denition Range

Xn
X1 fc 19.656.4 (MPa)
X2 m 812 N/A
X3 fyh 5501300 (MPa) Bias Node 2
X4 h 68 mm
X5 s 30100 mm Bias Node 1
X6 s 0.0070.051 N/A
Y Ks 0.813.60 N/A Fig. 2. Typical neural network model.
2648 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655

Table 3
Cases used in constructing the NN model.

Case no. (X1 ) (X2 ) (X3 ) (X4 ) (X5 ) (X6 ) (y)

fc m fyh h s s Ks

1 19.6 8 550 6 100 0.007 1.06

2 19.6 8 550 8 100 0.012 1.10
3 54.4 8 550 5 30 0.023 1.46
4 19.6 8 550 8 55 0.022 1.58
5 19.6 8 550 6 30 0.022 1.76
6 19.6 8 550 8 30 0.041 2.18
7 20.1 12 550 8 30 0.042 2.10
8 20.1 12 550 8 55 0.022 1.45
9 20.1 12 550 8 100 0.012 1.03
10 21.1 8 550 5 30 0.023 2.56
11 21.1 8 550 6 50 0.023 2.21
12 21.1 8 550 6 40 0.029 2.00
13 21.1 12 550 8 70 0.040 2.60
14 21.6 0 700 6 30 0.023 1.78
15 21.6 4 700 6 30 0.023 1.84
16 21.6 8 700 6 30 0.023 1.58
17 21.6 8 700 6 45 0.023 1.78
18 20.1 12 900 8 30 0.042 2.10
19 20.1 12 900 8 55 0.022 1.40
20 38.3 8 550 8 30 0.041 1.59
21 20.1 12 900 8 100 0.012 1.03
22 24 8 1300 6 40 0.029 2.30
23 24 8 1300 8 40 0.051 3.60
24 38.3 8 550 6 100 0.007 1.06
25 38.3 8 550 8 100 0.012 1.06
26 34.8 8 550 5 30 0.023 1.93
27 34.8 8 550 6 50 0.023 1.96
28 40.2 8 550 6 40 0.029 1.90
29 34.8 12 550 8 70 0.040 2.16
30 40.2 12 900 8 30 0.042 1.70
31 40.2 12 900 8 55 0.022 1.35
32 40.2 12 900 8 100 0.012 1.24
33 40.2 8 1300 6 40 0.029 2.00
34 40.2 8 1300 8 40 0.051 2.30
35 50.5 8 550 6 100 0.007 0.93
36 50.5 8 550 8 100 0.012 0.81
37 50.5 8 550 6 55 0.012 1.06
38 50.5 8 550 8 55 0.022 1.14
39 54.4 12 900 6 55 0.022 1.15
40 54.4 12 550 8 100 0.012 1.05
41 56.4 12 550 8 70 0.040 1.71
42 56.4 0 700 6 30 0.023 1.35
43 40.2 12 550 8 100 0.012 1.13
44 54.4 12 900 6 100 0.012 1.03
45 47.5 4 700 6 30 0.023 1.60
46 47.5 8 700 6 30 0.023 1.27
47 47.5 8 700 6 45 0.023 1.61
48 47.5 12 900 6 30 0.042 1.33

1 50.5 8 550 6 30 0.022 1.24

2 38.3 8 550 6 55 0.012 1.25
3 38.3 8 550 8 55 0.022 1.30
4 38.3 8 550 6 30 0.022 1.41
5 54.4 12 550 8 55 0.022 1.21
6 40.2 12 550 8 30 0.042 1.60
7 50.5 8 550 8 30 0.041 1.41
8 50.5 12 550 8 30 0.042 1.40
9 40.2 12 550 8 55 0.022 1.31
10 19.6 8 550 6 55 0.012 1.26
11 56.4 8 550 6 50 0.023 1.57

parameter Ks was affected by the gain in the concrete strength
due to connement provided by rectilinear reinforcement.
Besides, they considered the effect of rectilinear reinforcement
as a product of the square root of volumetric ratio of steel. From
a regression analysis, Ks can be written as
where Ack is the area of conned core concrete, Ast is the area
of total longitudinal reinforcement, m is the number of the lon-
gitudinal steels, and ci is the net distance between longitudinal
steels bounded by perimeter. In Eq. (3), volumetric ratio of lat-
eral ties s is expressed by

  2   Ash s
b2c mci2 s s = (5)
Ks = 1 + 1 1 s fyh (3) sbc dc
140Pocc 5.5b2c 2bc

where bc and dc are the width and depth of the conned core
Pocc = 0.85fc (Ack Ast ) (4) measured to center of ties, respectively.
 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655 2649

Table 4 (3) Saatcioglu and Razvi [6] reported in their study that the passive
Combinations of design parameters used in estimating Ks .
lateral pressure generated by laterally expanding concrete and
Combo no. (X1 ) (X2 ) (X3 ) (X4 ) (X5 ) (X6 ) restraining transverse reinforcement in square and rectangular
fc m fyh h s s columns was not always uniform. Therefore, the connement

1 model proposed was based on the computation of equivalent

2

uniform pressure that gives the same effect as the nonuniform
3 connement pressures that develop in columns with different

4
reinforcement arrangements as shown in Fig. 1. Equation for Ks
5
can be written as
6

7
6.7 0.17
8 Ks = 1 + (f1e ) f1e (6)

9 fc

10

11
In Eq. (6), the equivalent uniform pressure f1e can be dened as
12
13

Ash fyh sin
14 f1e = k2 f1 = k2 (7)
sbc

Fig. 3. Error on the estimated Ks vs. actual Ks for the eleven testing samples.
2650 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655

Fig. 3. (Continued )

where f1 is the average lateral pressure, is the angle between feedforward radial basis function network, etc. Feedforward neural
the transverse reinforcement and bc , and coefcient k2 dened networks are simple networks consisting of an input layer, hidden
to reduce the average pressure is obtained from Eq. (8). layer/layers and an output layer through which the information

 b  1  moves only in one direction [23]. In this paper, feedforward NN
bc c modeling is adapted. Fig. 2 shows a typical three-layer feedforward
k2 = 0.26 1 (8)
s ci f1 NN with n input nodes, m hidden nodes and one output. The input
nodes represent the data presented to the NN, whereas the output
3. Neural network design nodes represent the produced NN output. The hidden layer (Fig. 2)
functions as the interface.
NNs consists of simple mathematical structures handling highly A group of processing elements (PEs) exists in a typical NN,
non-linear problems easily. There are many NN types such as which is dened by computing the sum of their weighted inputs,
feedforward NN, self-organizing maps, recurrent neural networks, subtracting its threshold from the sum, and transferring these
results by a function as follows [23]:

Table 5


n
ui = wij xj i
NNs performance.
(9)
Combo no. EPEED (training) (%) EPEED (testing) (%) WE (%)
j=1
1 19.64 12.28 15.96
2 19.41 15.47 17.44 where ui represents the output of a PE, wij represents the synap-
3 11.79 21.22 16.51 tic weights associated with PE i, xj represents the input signal,  i
4 8.46 15.93 12.20 represents the threshold value of the PE, and () presents the
5 19.08 14.27 16.68
6 12.43 25.82 19.13
transformation (or activation) function [23]. The most common
7 9.28 16.91 13.10 form of activation function used in the construction of a NN is the
8 11.71 22.09 16.90 hyperbolic tangent function. This function generates output values
9 7.71 10.38 9.05 between 1 and 1 as given below [24]:
10 7.35 16.03 11.69
11 10.32 22.95 16.64 f (xi ) = tanh(xi ) (10)
12 7.67 12.52 10.10
13 7.24 6.49 6.87 where is used for controlling the slope of the function. There is no
14 6.34 4.07 5.21
specic rule as to how to determine the number of PEs required. For
 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655
many practical engineering problems, a single hidden layer with an
optimum number of PEs is considered to be sufcient [22]. Super-
vised learning NN algorithms, for example back propagation neural
networks train slowly and require many training data. However, it
is the most commonly used NN for the analysis of structural and
civil engineering problems due to its versatile and robust technique
and are capable of solving predictive problems [24]. Supervised
learning algorithms with static back-propagation neural network
are selected for the purpose of this study [19]. The NN model in
this study was developed in three phases: the modeling, the train-
ing, and the testing phases. The analysis of data, the identication
of RC column and section parameters, and the internal rules were
considered in the modeling phase. The preparation of the data and
the adaptation of the learning law for the training were performed
during the training phase. And the prediction accuracy of the model
was evaluated at the testing phase, i.e. the comparison of the actual
lateral connement coefcients (Ks ) and the estimated lateral con-
nement coefcients (Ks ).
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analyses results.
2651
3.1. Modeling the neural network
The accuracy of a NN model is signicantly affected by the
input variables. The six design parameters for the input layer were
selected to evaluate the Ks (output data) in R/C columns. The param-

eters are X1 : compressive strength of unconned concrete fc (MPa),
X2 : number of longitudinal bars (m), X3 : yield strength of lateral
tie, fyh (MPa), X4 : diameter of lateral ties, h (mm), X5 : spacing
between lateral ties, s (mm), X6 : volumetric ratio of lateral ties, s .
Based on the previous experimental results, these six parameters
are assumed to be the predominant Ks drivers of this study, and the
ranges of data for the selected design variables are given in Table 2.
A total of 59 cases were used for the NN model (Table 3). The Ks
and the input variables from the 59 cases were divided into two sets.
One set was used for the training of the NN (rst 48 cases in Table 3),
and the other was used for validating the performance of the trained
network (testing). For testing purposes, 20% of the data (11 cases)
were selected at random order for the testing set for each training
2652 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655
Fig. 4. (Continued )
cycle (cases below the dotted line in Table 3). Normalization of the
data set including training and testing was made for the modeling
of the NN. For normalization, the data set were multiplied by nor-
malization coefcients: amplitude and offset. The normalization
coefcients were computed based on the minimum and maximum
values found among all of the data set [24]. One hidden layer was
used in the NN model. In the NN model, the momentum coefcient
of 0.7 for the hidden and output layers performed very well. The
step size in learning rate was selected as 1.0 for the hidden and 0.1
for the output layers.
3.2. The training phase
The NN analyses have been carried out by Neuro Solutions [24].
To investigate which combination of the six design parameters esti-
mates the Ks , a total of 14 combinations were used (Table 4). The
NN models in this study were created using an input layer of 3-, 4-,
5-, and 6-six interconnected PEs corresponding to the 3-, 4-, 5-, and
6-six input parameters, respectively, and one PE corresponding to
an output layer selected as the target. The error between the NN
output and target output is processed back through the network
(backward pass) adjusting the individual weights [21]. During the
learning, a gradual reduction of error between the model output
and the target output occurs and the error is minimized so as to
minimize the sum of squared errors [23]. The mean square error
(MSE) is dened as [25]:

n 2
(x
i=1 i
X(i))
MSE = (11)
n to be 5.21% (Table 5).
where n is the number of samples to be evaluated in the training
phase (n = 48 for this study), xi is the model output related to the
sample i (i = 1, 2,. . ., n), and X(i) is the target output, i.e. the esti-
mated Ks . Training is stopped when the MSE remained unchanged
for a given number of epochs. An epoch number of 1000 was found
to be sufcient for the training phase.
3.3. The testing phase
Testing set gives an idea about the performance of the NN. The
testing is performed with the best weights obtained during the
training. The NNs performance in this study was measured by using
the Ks percentage error (PEKs ) formula as follows:
x(i) X(i)
PEKs = x100% (12)
X(i)
To evaluate the entire NNs overall performance, weighted error
(WE) was dened as follows [26]:
WE(%) = 0.5(Average PEKs for Training Set)
+0.5(Average PEKs for Testing Set) (13)
Table 5 summarizes the performance of the NN models for each
Combo. PEKs for the testing set in each NN model is given in Fig. 3.
The highest error in the testing set was observed for Combo no. 6
and the smallest error was for Combo 14 (Fig. 3). Average PEKs for
the 11 testing cases for Combo 14 was calculated as 4.07%, while it
was 6.34% for the training set (48 cases). Thus, the WE was found
 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655 2653

Table 6
Comparison of the experimental and analytical results.

Num. Specimen Ks,prop . Ks,exp /Ks,prop .

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1 L8S5.5S10 1.20 1.31 0.9 0.97 0.9 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.72 0.97
2 L8S5.5E10 1.34 1.341 1.24 1.16 1.11 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.99
3 L8S5.5S5.5 1.34 1.59 1.31 1.30 1.28 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.99
4 L8S5.5E5.5 1.59 1.79 1.40 1.54 1.48 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.02 1.06
5 L8S5.5S3 1.62 1.95 1.951 1.72 1.031 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.03
6 L8S5.5E3 2.07 2.28 1.65 2.05 0.990 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.06 0.99
7 L12S5.5E3 2.04 1.03 1.64 1.98 2.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.06 1.03
8 L12S5.5E5.5 1.57 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.98
9 L12S5.5E10 1.33 1.46 1.23 1.12 1.13 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91
10 L8C5.5F3 1.60 1.89 2.58 1.96 2.32 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.31 1.10
11 L8D5.5S5 1.57 1.76 1.52 1.88 2.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.18 1.07
12 L8D5.5S4 1.73 1.93 1.62 0.88 2.26 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
13 L12R5.5E7 1.86 1.88 0.970 2.33 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.12 0.97
14 L0S7S3 1.051 2.30 1.051 a 12.30 1.05 1.05 1.05 a 1.05
15 L4S7S3 1.71 1.58 1.821 1.82 1.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.01 0.94
16 L8S7S3 1.71 1.97 10.91 1.73 1.75 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
17 L8C7S4.5 1.71 1.87 2.52 0.8 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.89
18 L12S9E3 2.70 2.83 1.78 2.11 2.12 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99
19 L12S9E5.5 1.94 2.13 1.47 1.9 1.45 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.88 0.96
20 L12S9E10 1.54 0.9 0.9 1.59 1.05 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.86 0.98
21 L8D13S4 2.52 2.25 1.78 2.46 2.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00
22 L8D13E4 3.65 2.70 2.00 2.63 3.23 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.37 1.11
23 M8S5.5S10 1.10 1.16 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.86 1.03
24 M8S5.5E10 1.17 1.21 1.12 0.97 0.96 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.09 1.11
25 M8S5.5S5.5 1.17 1.30 1.16 1.09 1.13 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.15 1.11
26 M8S5.5E5.5 1.30 1.40 1.0 1.30 1.27 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.02
27 M8S5.5S3 1.32 1.49 1.26 1.44 1.38 1.02 1.02 1.02 0.98 1.02
28 M8S5.5E3 1.55 1.65 1.33 1.72 1.63 1.52 1.52 1.52 0.93 1.52
29 M12S5.5E3 1.52 1.72 1.32 1.65 1.56 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.97 1.03
30 M12S5.5E5.5 1.29 1.44 1.29 1.24 1.32 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.05 0.99
31 M12S5.5E10 1.16 1.23 1.12 0.93 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.21 1.05
32 M8C5.5F3 1.36 1.54 1.96 1.71 2.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.13 0.97
33 M8D5.5S5 1.35 1.46 1.351 1.64 1.74 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.19 1.13
34 M8D5.5S4 1.38 1.49 1.33 1.92 1.72 1.11 1.11 1.11 0.99 1.11
35 M12R5.5E7 1.52 1.53 1.36 2.04 2.17 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.06 0.99
36 M12S9E3 1.85 1.92 1.39 1.76 1.59 1.07 1.07 1.07 0.97 1.07
37 M12S9E5.5 1.47 1.57 1.24 1.32 1.29 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.02 1.05
38 M12S9E10 1.27 1.29 1.14 1.00 0.98 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.26
39 M8D13S4 1.91 1.75 1.47 2.15 1.94 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.93 1.03
40 M8D13E4 2.58 2.01 1.60 2.30 2.53 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91
41 H8S5.5S10 1.08 1.12 1.07 0.94 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.94
42 H8S5.5E10 1.13 1.16 1.09 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.85
43 H8S5.5S5.5 1.13 1.23 1.12 1.001 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00
44 H8S5.5E5.5 1.23 1.231 1.15 0.930 1.22 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.93
45 H8S5.5S3 1.24 1.37 1.20 1.34 1.28 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.97
46 H8S5.5E3 1.41 1.50 1.25 0.970 1.45 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.88 0.97
47 H12S5.5E3 1.41 1.57 1.25 1.55 1.44 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.90 0.98
48 H12S5.5E5.5 1.21 1.33 1.14 0.95 1.28 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.05 0.95
49 H12S5.5E10 1.12 1.17 0.95 0.86 1.10 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.22 0.95
50 H8C5.5F3 1.23 1.35 0.961 1.52 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 0.96 1.14
51 H8D5.5S5 1.21 1.29 1.19 1.45 1.38 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.08 1.14
52 H12R5.5E7 1.32 1.33 1.22 1.0 1.0 1.07 1.07 1.07 0.95 1.07
53 H0S7S3 1.27 1.50 1.50 a 1.46 0.93 0.93 0.93 a 0.93
54 H4S7S3 1.32 1.26 1.23 1.48 1.48 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08
55 H8S7S3 1.32 1.44 1.23 1.41 1.32 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.96
56 H8C7S4.5 1.32 1.40 1.69 1.53 1.45 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.05 1.11
57 H12S9E3 1.72 1.78 1.33 1.68 1.47 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.79 0.91
58 H12S9E5.5 1.35 1.42 1.17 1.22 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.94 0.89
59 H12S9E10 1.120 1.22 1.11 0.92 1.094 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.12 0.94

Mean 1.03 0.97 1.12 1.01 1.02

Standard deviation 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.13 0.10
Coefcient of variation 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.10

(1) Kent and Park; (2) Sheikh and Uzumeri; (3) Saatcioglu and Razvi;(4) Eq. (14); (5) NN.
a
Not considered (m = 0, see Table 1).

Sensitivity analysis was also carried out to investigate the effect
that each network input was having on the network output. This
gives the user the option of removing the insignicant channels
from the network reducing the size of the network. This would
reduce the complexity and the training times. During the sensitivity
analysis, the network weights are not affected, because the network
training is disabled [24]. Sensitivity analyses results related to dif-
ferent combinations dened in Table 4 are shown in Fig. 4. During
the analysis, the network weights are not affected, because the net-
work training is disabled. The inputs to the network are shifted
slightly and the corresponding change in the output is reported as
a percentage summing to 100% in total [24]. In this study, for the 3-
2654 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655
parameter Combos (Fig. 4ad), the most effective parameters were
found to be fc (X1 ), h (X4 ), and s (X6 ). For the highest performance
Combo (Combo 14), the input parameter s (X6 ) was found to be
the most effective parameter on predicting the lateral connement
coefcient (42.84%) (Fig. 4n), while the most insignicant param-
eter was found to be the input parameter fyh (X3 ) (3.14%). In a real
case, fyh is expected to have signicant effect on Ks . The reason it
had such a little effect in this study might be due to only four dif-
ferent fyh values (550 MPa, 500 MPa, 900 MPa, and 1300 MPa) were
used in constructing the NN model. If there were more fyh values
included in the NN model, the effect of on the Ks would proba-
bly be higher. s (X6 ) was also the most effective parameter in any
Combo when included. The input parameters s (X1 ), m (X2 ), h
(X4 ), and s (X5 ) had the effect of 11.61%, 12.21%, 15.79%, and 14.41%,
respectively, on the lateral connement coefcient for Combo
14 (Fig. 4n).
3.4. Comments on results
Data from 11 cases were used for testing purposes in this study
out of a total 48 cases. The results for the 6-parameter Combo
(Combo 14) showed 94.79% of average accuracy. The highest per-
formance observed in 6-parameter Combo (Combo 14) shows that
even the small attributes provided by the other parameters such
as fyh (X3 ) may enhance the NNs prediction capability, i.e. the
more the number of design parameters, the higher the accuracy.
MSE was measured as 0.0069 and 0.0024 at the end of the train-
ing and testing phases, respectively. The results were also tested
through Hegazy and Ayeds method [26]. In their study, Hegazy
and Ayed [26] developed a simple NN simulation in a spread-
sheet format for cost-estimating of highway projects. They used
an optimization technique used by Excel Solver which can be used
as an optimization of nonlinear problems. In this study, the same
approach was adapted in this study to make a comparison of the
results obtained from the NN model developed in this study. The
WE was found to be 4.90% with an average PEKs of 4.53% and
5.26% for training and testing cases, respectively, using Hegazy
and Ayeds method [26]. A nonlinear regression analysis was also
carried and the following nonlinear equation with a coefcient
correlation of 0.84 was obtained by using a commercial statistical
software [27].
Ks = 41.1fc
(0.263) (0.129)
m(0.071) fyh h (0.813) s(0.209) h (0.591)
Eq. (14) yielded an average PEKs of 27.58%. The experimental and
analytical values obtained from suggested empirical equations and
from Eq. (14) and the NN model for lateral connement coef-
cient, Ks are compared by means of statistical analysis. Mean values,
standard deviations and coefcients of variation of the ratio of
the experimental to analytical values, are calculated in Table 6. As
shown in Table 6, it is observed that the NN model constructed in
this study yielded better results compared to the proposed empir-
ical equations and Eq. (14).
4. Conclusions
In this study, the NN model was achieved for developing and
testing the prediction of connement coefcient in R/C rectangular
columns. The data of 48 cases were used to train the NN. The testing
of the NN was done by the data of 11 testing cases. The following
conclusions can be drawn based on the results of the analyses:
1. Volumetric ratio of lateral ties was found to be the most effective
parameter on lateral connement coefcient.
2. The approach adapted in this study was shown to be capable
of providing the best accurate estimates of Ks by using the six
design parameters. The results are considered to be encourag-
ing for further research of expanded data sets. By setting up
some random variations in the design parameters, it is possible
to estimate the Ks for new or existing R/C rectangular columns.
It should be noted that neural networks learn from examples
of which performance strongly depends on the quality and the
quantity of examples. The more examples there are, the less the
prediction error is. Thus, to study modeling and prediction meth-
ods, and construct an accurate prediction model of Ks , there is a
need for an experimental research in which full-scale data of R/C
rectangular columns with various congurations are considered.
This type of a broad range of experimental data would also be
helpful for evaluating the sensitivity analyses results.
3. The accuracy of the connement coefcient depends strongly
on the data provided to the NN as well as the number of input
variables. For cases when there is not enough data for testing,
NN models with 4 or less variables estimate the connement
coefcient with higher errors. For such highly nonlinear prob-
lems, errors less than 10% for both training and testing phases
can be considered to be good enough in structural engineering
problems.
References
[1] D.C. Kent, R. Park, Flexural members with conned concrete, Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 97 (7) (1971) 19691990.
[2] R. Park, M.J. Priestley, W.D. Gill, Ductility of square-conned concrete columns,
Proceedings ASCE 108 (4) (1982) 929950.
[3] S.A. Sheikh, S.M. Uzumeri, Strength and ductility of tied concrete columns,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 108 (12) (1980) 27032722.
[4] S.A. Sheikh, S.M. Uzumeri, Analytical model for concrete connement in tied
columns, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 106 (5) (1982) 10791101.
[5] M. Saatcioglu, S.R. Razvi, Strength and ductility of conned concrete, Journal of
the Structural Engineering, ASCE 118 (6) (1992) 15901607.
[6] M. Saatcioglu, S.R. Razvi, Connement model for high-strength concrete, Jour-
nal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE 125 (3) (1999) 281289.
[7] H.S. Chung, K.H. Yang, Y.H. Lee, H.C. Eun, Stressstrain curve of laterally con-
ned concrete, Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 11531163.
[8] I. Flood, A neural network approach to the sequencing of construction tasks,
in: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Automation and
Robotics in Construction, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1989,
pp. 204211.
[9] L. Ren, Z. Zhao, An optimal neural network and concrete strength modeling,
Advances in Engineering Software 33 (2002) 117130.
[10] S. Lai, M. Serra, Concrete strength prediction by means of neural network,
Construction of Building Materials 11 (2) (1997) 9398.
[11] A. Cladera, A.B. Mari, Shear design procedure for reinforced normal and high-
strength concrete beams using articial neural networks. Part I. Beams without
(14) stirrups, Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 917926.
[12] S. Saadata, M.N. Nooria, G.D. Bucknera, T. Furukawab, Y. Suzukic, Structural
health monitoring and damage detection using an intelligent parameter vary-
ing (IPV) technique, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 39 (2004)
16871697.
[13] M. Tehranizadeh, M. Sa, Application of articial intelligence for construction
of design spectra, Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 707720.
[14] M.E. Williams, M.I. Hoit, Bridge pier live load analysis using neural networks,
Advances in Engineering Software 35 (2004) 645652.
[15] F. Amini, M.R. Tavassoli, Optimal active structural control force, number and
placement of controllers, Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13061316.
[16] M. Papadrakakis, N.D. Lagaros, V. Plevris, Design optimization of steel structures
considering uncertainties, Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 14081418.
[17] Z. Zhao, Steel columns under rea neural network based strength model,
Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2) (2004) 97105.
[18] T. Kerh, S.B. Ting, Neural network estimation of ground peak acceleration at
stations along Taiwan high-speed rail system, Engineering Applications of Arti-
cial Intelligence 18 (7) (2005) 857866.
[19] W.T. Yeung, J.W. Smith, Damage detection in bridges using neural networks for
pattern recognition of vibration signatures, Engineering Structures 27 (2005)
685698.
[20] J.J. Lee, W.L. Lee, J.H. Yi, C.B. Yun, H.Y. Jung, Neural networks-based damage
detection for bridges considering errors in baseline nite element models,
Journal of Sound and Vibration 280 (2005) 555578.
[21] A.F. Ashour, M.A. Alqedra, Concrete breakout strength of single anchors in
tension using neural networks, Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005)
8797.
[22] M.Y. Raq, G. Bugmann, D.J. Easterbrook, Neural network design for engineer-
ing applications, Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 15411552.
[23] S. Haykin, Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, Macmillan College
Publishing Company, Inc., NJ, 1994.
 S.N. Alacal et al. / Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 26452655 2655

[24] Neuro Solutions. Neurodimension, Inc., Version 4.24, 2003. [26] T. Hegazy, A. Ayed, Neural network model for parametric cost estimation of
[25] H.M. Gunaydin, S.Z. Dogan, A neural network approach for early cost estimation highway projects, Journal of Construction and Engineering and Management
of structural systems of buildings, International Journal of Project Management 124 (3) (1998) 210218.
22 (2004) 595602. [27] IBM SPSS Statistics 19, Trial Software, 2010.