Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chao-Wei Tang1
Abstract: In the analysis or design process of reinforced concrete structures, the peak stress and strain in plain concrete under triaxial
stress are critical. However, the nonlinear behavior of concrete under triaxial stresses is very complicated; modeling its behavior is
therefore a complicated task. In the present study, several radial basis function neural network 共RBFN兲 models have been developed for
predicting peak stress and strain in plain concrete under triaxial stress. For the purpose of constructing the RBFN models, 56 records
including normal- and high-strength concretes under triaxial loads were retrieved from literature for analysis. The K-means clustering
algorithm and the pseudoinverse technique were employed to train the network for extracting knowledge from training examples. Besides,
the performance of the developed RBFN models was estimated by the method of three-way data splits and K-fold cross-validation. On the
other hand, a comparative study between the RBFN models and existing regression models was made. The results demonstrate the
versatility of RBFN in constructing relationships among multiple variables of nonlinear behavior of concrete under triaxial stresses.
Moreover, the results also show that the RBFN models provided better accuracy than the existing parametric models, both in terms of
root-mean-square error and correlation coefficient.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲MT.1943-5533.0000077
CE Database subject headings: Reinforced concrete; Stress; Strain; Neural networks; Concrete structures.
Author keywords: Concrete; Triaxial stress; Peak stress; Peak strain; Neural networks.
冉 冊
modeling themes in real applications, MLP networks have poor
process interpretability and are hindered by problems associated f cc
with weight optimization such as slow learning and local minimi- cc = 5cp − 0.8 共2兲
f cp
zation 共Jang et al. 1997兲. Since the 1990s, a special kind of neural
network, i.e., the so-called radial basis function network 共RBFN兲, in which f cc = maximum axial stress 共or compressive strength兲 of
has been applied as alternatives to alleviate some of the limita- confined concrete; f cp = maximum axial stress of unconfined con-
tions of MLP networks 共Bishop 1997兲. crete; f l = lateral confining pressure; cc = axial compressive strain
In view of the above statements, this study aimed at investi- at peak stress of confined concrete; and cp = axial compressive
gating the application of RBFN in predicting the peak stress and strain at peak stress of unconfined concrete.
its corresponding strain in plain concrete under triaxial stress.
First, some fundamental aspects and mathematical equations for Attard and Setunge Model
the nonlinear constitutive stress-strain relationships of confined
concrete are introduced to highlight the difficulties associated Attard and Setunge 共1996兲 presented a strength criterion for the
with analytical model for hardened concrete under triaxial loads. ultimate strength of confined concrete subjected to low confining
Subsequently, a brief overview on the RBFN-based methodology pressure. The proposed formula extends into the tension-
for modeling is described. Then, 56 records including normal- compression domain and is defined by
冉 冊
and high-strength concretes were retrieved from existing literature k
共Attard and Setunge 1996; Imran and Pantazopoulou 1996兲 for fl
f cc = f cp +1 共3兲
analysis. Moreover, the calculated results were compared with the ft
experimental values and with those determined from the Attard with
and Setunge 共1996兲 and Richart et al. 共1928兲 models.
f t = 0.288f 0.67
cp MPa 共for no silica fume concrete兲
mum principal stresses, respectively, as shown schematically in where f t = tensile strength of concrete and k = parameter that re-
Fig. 1. When conducting a triaxial test, hydrostatic pressure is flects the effectiveness of confinement. As for the strain at peak
often raised to some level and is then held constant until failure stress, the following equation is proposed:
6 20.0 0.00300 55700 234 0.00800 231 0.00799 202 0.01725 235 0.00790 Training
7 bR 0.30 120.0 5.0 0.00280 52800 168 0.00420 161 0.00420 141 0.00840 158 0.00394 Training
8 10.0 0.00280 52800 187 0.00480 189 0.00480 161 0.01062 187 0.00509 Training
9 15.0 0.00280 52800 211 0.00570 208 0.00570 182 0.01342 212 0.00623 Training
10 cR 0.35 110.0 5.0 0.00280 55400 150 0.00350 148 0.00350 131 0.00789 147 0.00412 Training
11 10.0 0.00280 55400 175 0.00440 174 0.00440 151 0.01107 175 0.00545 Training
12 15.0 0.00280 55400 192 0.00600 192 0.00600 172 0.01324 200 0.00677 Training
13 dR 0.26 100.0 1.0 0.00270 52900 106 0.00310 113 0.00315 104 0.00351 108 0.00300 Test
14 5.0 0.00270 52900 121 0.00360 129 0.00295 121 0.00554 136 0.00419 Test
15 10.0 0.00270 52900 144 0.00470 149 0.00405 141 0.00864 163 0.00567 Test
16 15.0 0.00270 52900 165 0.00580 165 0.00589 162 0.01148 187 0.00716 Test
17 aB 0.26 132.0 5.0 0.00340 49300 180 0.00500 170 0.00684 153 0.00958 171 0.00457 Validation
18 10.0 0.00340 49300 200 0.00580 193 0.00732 173 0.01216 202 0.00574 Validation
19 15.0 0.00340 49300 222 0.00780 213 0.00929 194 0.01499 228 0.00691 Validation
20 dB 0.26 126.0 5.0 0.00340 49400 162 0.00500 165 0.00655 147 0.00826 164 0.00467 Validation
21 10.0 0.00340 49400 186 0.00710 189 0.00702 167 0.01150 194 0.00595 Training
22 15.0 0.00340 49400 211 0.00890 211 0.00900 188 0.01487 220 0.00722 Training
23 aH 0.26 118.0 5.0 0.00280 57800 154 0.00380 159 0.00380 139 0.00707 156 0.00398 Training
24 10.0 0.00280 57800 173 0.00490 185 0.00490 159 0.00933 185 0.00515 Training
25 15.0 0.00280 57800 201 0.00620 203 0.00620 180 0.01265 210 0.00633 Training
26 bH 0.30 110.0 5.0 0.00280 58700 153 0.00410 146 0.00410 131 0.00827 147 0.00412 Training
27 10.0 0.00280 58700 164 0.00550 170 0.00550 151 0.00967 175 0.00545 Training
28 15.0 0.00280 58700 185 0.00590 188 0.00590 172 0.01235 200 0.00677 Training
29 cH 0.35 100.0 5.0 0.00260 54600 127 0.00390 130 0.00390 121 0.00611 136 0.00403 Training
30 10.0 0.00260 54600 153 0.00520 146 0.00520 141 0.00949 163 0.00546 Training
31 15.0 0.00260 54600 169 0.00750 159 0.00750 162 0.01157 187 0.00689 Training
32 dH 0.26 96.0 5.0 0.00280 55800 119 0.00370 125 0.00370 117 0.00615 128 0.00444 Training
33 10.0 0.00280 55800 147 0.00520 146 0.00520 137 0.01024 153 0.00608 Training
34 15.0 0.00280 55800 157 0.00530 164 0.00530 158 0.01170 175 0.00772 Training
35 eH 0.45 60.0 1.0 0.00210 45100 67 0.00270 89 0.00269 64 0.00333 67 0.00257 Training
36 5.0 0.00210 45100 98 0.00480 100 0.00482 81 0.00875 89 0.00445 Training
37 10.0 0.00210 45100 122 0.00760 114 0.00759 101 0.01295 112 0.00679 Training
38 15.0 0.00210 45100 145 0.00990 130 0.00990 122 0.01698 132 0.00914 Training
39 Batch 1 0.40 73.4 3.2 0.00325 37131 96 0.00495 96 0.00463 86 0.00830 94 0.00504 Training Imran and
40 6.4 0.00325 37131 109 0.00650 106 0.00625 100 0.01108 111 0.00682 Training Pantazopoulou
41 12.8 0.00325 37131 126 0.01045 128 0.01123 126 0.01483 139 0.01040 Training 共1996兲
42 25.6 0.00325 37131 169 0.02050 171 0.02006 178 0.02435 186 0.01754 Training
43 38.4 0.00325 37131 204 0.03105 206 0.03017 231 0.03218 225 0.02469 Training
44 51.2 0.00325 37131 241 0.04090 230 0.04162 283 0.04028 261 0.03183 Training
45 Batch 2 0.55 47.4 2.2 0.00280 34895 58 0.00430 58 0.00470 56 0.00583 61 0.00460 Training
46 4.3 0.00280 34895 67 0.00690 65 0.00771 65 0.00868 72 0.00640 Training
47 8.6 0.00280 34895 84 0.01460 81 0.01383 83 0.01349 92 0.00999 Training
48 17.2 0.00280 34895 118 0.02530 117 0.02487 118 0.02367 125 0.01718 Training
49 30.1 0.00280 34895 161 0.03600 170 0.03738 171 0.03637 167 0.02797 Training
50 43.0 0.00280 34895 205 0.04730 215 0.04673 224 0.04926 206 0.03876 Training
51 Batch 3 0.75 28.6 1.1 0.00260 26173 34 0.00470 36 0.00543 33 0.00486 35 0.00406 Training
52 2.1 0.00260 26173 36 0.00675 39 0.00771 37 0.00612 41 0.00552 Training
53 4.2 0.00260 26173 48 0.01385 46 0.01255 46 0.01144 51 0.00843 Training
54 8.4 0.00260 26173 65 0.02375 62 0.02211 63 0.01919 69 0.01426 Training
55 14.7 0.00260 26173 92 0.03425 87 0.03496 89 0.03151 93 0.02301 Training
56 21.0 0.00260 26173 115 0.04460 114 0.04469 115 0.04161 116 0.03176 Training
Range of parameters: w / c: 0.26–0.75; f cp: 28.6–132.0 共MPa兲; f cc: 33.6–240.5 共MPa兲; f l: 0.5–51.2 共MPa兲; Ec: 26173–58700 共MPa兲;
cp: 0.00210–0.003400.00210–0.00340; cc: 0.00260–0.04460
Note: w / c = water-cement 共or binder兲 ratio; f cp = maximum axial stress of unconfined concrete; f l = lateral confining pressure; cp = axial compressive strain
at peak stress of unconfined concrete; Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete; f cc = maximum axial stress of confined concrete; cc = axial compressive strain
at peak stress of confined concrete; f RBF = predicted peak stress using RK14-F4共4–11-1兲 model; RBF = predicted peak strain using RK14-E4共4–11-1兲
model; f R = predicted peak stress using Eq. 共1兲; R = predicted peak strain using Eq. 共2兲; f A = predicted peak stress using Eq. 共3兲; A = predicted peak strain
using Eq. 共6兲.
hM(x) wp0
wPM
xD (M, M) yP
Input layer Hidden layer Output layer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPE - Universidade Federal de Pernambuco on 11/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
冋 冉 冊册
Selection of Input and Output Variables for RBFN
fl Models
cc = cp 1 + 共17 − 0.06f cp兲 共6兲
f cp
Determining the network architecture is one of the most important
tasks in the development of ANN models. Generally speaking, it
requires the selection of the input and output parameters which
RBFN Modeling of Concrete under Triaxial Stress will restrict the number of the input and output nodes of the
network. Fortunately, selection of input variables for a network
Fig. 2 shows the typical architecture of a RBFN with an input model could be guided by examining those parameters given in
layer of D neurons, a hidden layer of M neurons, an output layer the aforementioned references since the existing empirical equa-
of P neurons, adjustable weights that exist only between the hid- tions represent a survey of various statistical regression attempts
den and output layers, and biases at each output neuron. The input for correlations between the behavior of confined concrete and
layer serves only as input distributor to the hidden layer, where characteristic parameters. Various RBFN models were considered
they are transformed into a high-dimensional feature space using for predicting peak stress, f cc, and corresponding strain, cc, in
radial basis functions, called basis functions. The basis functions plain concrete under triaxial stress. After a series of simulations, it
are exponentially decaying nonlinear functions and are radial was found that the best input representation for the different out-
functions, which have radial symmetry with respect to a center. put variables 共i.e., f cc and cc兲 consisted of four variables: maxi-
The centers can be regarded as the neurons 共or nodes兲 of the mum axial stress of unconfined concrete, f cp; lateral confining
hidden layer. Each neuron in the hidden layer is a radial function. pressure, f l; axial compressive strain at peak stress of unconfined
Then, the transformed data in this space are linearly transformed concrete, cp; and modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec. The ar-
in order to approximate the target outputs. A commercially avail- chitectures of the developed ANN models for f cc and cc are
able software package, statistica Neural Networks, was used to shown separately in Table 2. The first column in Table 2 denotes
establish RBFN models for predicting the peak stress and strain in the K-fold partition and the neural network structure for f cc. For
plain concrete under triaxial stress. Details on the establishment example, RK8-F1共4–10-1兲 stands for the RBFN model using the
of the RBFN models, along with sources of the data that are used experiment 1 of eightfold partitions 共see Fig. 3兲 and it has three
in the development, are described below. layers 共i.e., four input neurons in the first layer, one hidden layer
with 10 hidden neurons in the second layer, and one output neu-
ron in the third layer兲. In addition, several MLP models are also
Data Set
developed for comparison 共see Table 2兲.
The experimental data used in this study include 56 records,
which are taken from the tests carried out by Attard and Setunge
Network Topology and Training Algorithm
共1996兲 and Imran and Pantazopoulou 共1996兲. The tests were done
on cylindrical specimens using a triaxial cell and the stress path The training of a RBFN takes place in two distinct stages. Usu-
was followed in the conventional cylindrical triaxial test. In other ally, the centers and width factors of the radial basis functions
words, axial compressive stress was gradually applied under dis- must be set, then the linear output layer is optimized. In the study,
placement control, while the level of confining pressure was the centers stored in the radial hidden layer were optimized first
maintained. The complete list of the data is given in Table 1, using a kind of unsupervised training technique, i.e., the K-means
where the name and the source of each specimen are referenced. method 共Moody and Darken 1989兲. A set of data points was se-
To avoid the over-fit phenomenon, the so-called “three-way data lected at random from the training data subset. These data points
splits” 共i.e., divide the available data into training, validation, and were the seeds of an incremental K-means clustering procedure
test set兲 were adopted. Furthermore, in order to make the best use and these K-means centers were used as centers in the RBFN.
of limited data for training, model selection, and performance Then the width of the data was reflected in the radial deviations
estimation, the method of K-fold cross validation was also and deviations were assigned by the K-nearest neighbor method.
adopted in the present study 共Vapnik 1998兲. The data were ran- In other words, each basis’s deviation is individually set to the
domly split into K equal parts and two different numbers of K mean distance to its K nearest neighbors. Hence, deviations are
were chosen 共i.e., K = 8 and K = 14兲. For each of K experiments, smaller in tightly packed areas of space, preserving detail, and
K-2 folds were used for training, while the remaining twofolds higher in sparse areas of space. After centers and deviations were
were used for validation and testing, respectively. This procedure set, the linear output layer was optimized using the pseudoinverse
is illustrated in Fig. 3 for K = 8. technique 共Haykin 1999兲.
RK8-F7共4–16-1兲 f cc RK8-E7共4–12-1兲
RK8-F8共4–7-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK8-E8共4–11-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F1共4–13-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E1共4–13-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F2共4–14-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E2共4–15-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F3共4–19-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E3共4–17-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F4共4–11-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E4共4–11-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F5共4–7-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E5共4–6-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F6共4–8-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E6共4–5-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F7共4–11-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E7共4–11-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F8共4–6-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E8共4–12-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F9共4–14-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E9共4–11-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F10共4–21-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E10共4–12-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F11共4–15-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E11共4–6-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F12共4–10-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E12共4–12-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F13共4–10-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E13共4–10-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F14共4–18-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec f cc RK14-E14共4–14-1兲 f cp , f l , cp , Ec cc
RK14-F4共3–7-1兲 f cp , f l , cpc f cc RK14-E4共3–7-1兲 f cp , f l , cpc cc
RK14-F4共2–7-1兲 f cp , f l f cc RK14-E4共2–12-1兲 f cp , f l cc
As previously mentioned, the data set was divided into three validation errors indicating overlearning. If overlearning occurs,
subsets: training, validation, and test cases. To reiterate, the neural the software stops training the network and restores it to the state
networks were trained using the training subset only. The valida- with minimum validation error. The validation error was also used
tion subset was used to keep an independent check on the perfor- by the software to select between the available networks. How-
mance of the networks during training, with deterioration in the ever, if a large number of networks are tested, a random sampling
effect can kick in and one may get a network with a good vali- the predicated results obtained with the two RBFN models and
dation error which is not actually indicative of good generaliza- the aforementioned empirical equations are given in Table 1. In
tion capabilities. Therefore, a third subset 共i.e., the test subset兲 Table 1, all models used the same training, validation, and testing
was maintained and one could visually inspect performance after data to calculate the predicted peak stress, f ccp, and its corre-
training. sponding axial strain, ccp, in confined concrete. Regarding all 56
A great amount of networks were tested. The best network specimens, the experimental peak stress 共f cce collected from the
found for a great diversity of ANN models was retained. The literature兲 is plotted against the predicted values, as shown in
performance of the developed ANN was measured in two aspects: Figs. 4共a–c兲. To show the overall trend of correlation, the theoret-
one is the value of root-mean-square 共RMS兲 error of the network ical line with f cce / f ccp = 1 was drawn on the graphs along with the
output to the target output and the other is the Pearson correlation data points plotted. The nearer the points gather around the diag-
coefficient, r, between the network output and the target output. onal line, the better are the predicted values. Figs. 4共a and b兲
In principle, the lower the RMS error value or the higher the r show that the correlation between the values of f cce and f ccp was
value is, the better the prediction relationship will be. Judging deemed satisfactory for the weaker specimens by Eqs. 共1兲 and 共3兲,
from Tables 3 and 4, it can be concluded that the developed while the correlation for the stronger specimens was more scat-
RBFN models had a good generalization performance in terms of tered, particularly by Eq. 共1兲. By contrast, Fig. 4共c兲 clearly shows
the average RMS error and r values obtained from the K-fold that the less scatter of data around the diagonal line confirms the
cross-validation with K = 14. Especially, the average r values for fact that neural network-based model is an excellent predictor for
the training, validation, and testing subsets are all greater than the value of f cc. Overall, it can be observed that a larger variation
0.97 共see Tables 3 and 4兲. The results demonstrate the peak stress in the accuracy was noticed in the Richart et al. model. Therefore,
and strain in plain concrete under triaxial stress can be accurately based on the 56 records, an improved equation for Eq. 共1兲 is
estimated using four input variables 共i.e., f cp, f l, cp, and Ec兲. This proposed as follows:
is quite consistent with most existing analytical methods. Besides,
as compared with MLPs 共refer to Tables 3 and 4兲, RBFNs not f cc = 1.2f cp + 3.4f l 共7兲
only trained quite rapidly during training but also provided fairly
good accuracy. where the parameters are as previously defined. The coefficient of
determination, R2, of Eq. 共7兲 is 0.97 and thus a superior f cce ver-
sus f ccp plot is obtained, as shown in Fig. 4共d兲.
Comparison with Empirical Equations
As for the axial compressive strain at peak stress of confined
In order to evaluate the capabilities of RBFNs in predicting concrete, the experimental strain 共cce collected from the litera-
the peak stress and strain of plain concrete under triaxial stress, ture兲 is also plotted against the predicted values 共ccp兲, as shown
two developed RBFN models 关i.e., RK14-F4共4–11-1兲 for f cc in Fig. 5. It is evident from Figs. 5共a and b兲 that the correlation
and RK14-E4共4–11-1兲 for cc兴 were chosen. A comparison of between the values of cce and ccp was less than satisfactory
Experimental value
Experimental value
Experimental value
fcp<50 MPa fcp<50 MPa fcp<50 MPa
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Predicted value Predicted value Predicted value
(a) (b) (c)
0.06 0.06 0.06
fcp>100 MPa fcp>100 MPa fcp>100 MPa
50 MPafcp100 MPa 50 MPafcp100 MPa 50 MPafcp100 MPa
0.05 0.05 0.05
Experimental value
Experimental value
Experimental value
fcp<50 MPa fcp<50 MPa fcp<50 MPa
by Eqs. 共2兲 and 共6兲. As expected, the neural network approach considering the peak stress and the corresponding strain, the over-
provides better results 关Fig. 5共c兲兴. Similarly, based on the 56 all predictions from the RBFN models were found to be better
records, the following modified equations are proposed separately than the aforementioned parametric models and the proposed re-
for Eqs. 共2兲 and 共6兲: gression models. This indicates that the use of RBFN is an appro-
冋 冉 冊册
priate and powerful tool for predicting the peak stress and strain
2
f cc in normal- and high-strength concrete under triaxial stress.
cc = 0.68cp + 8.1cp ln 共8兲
f cp
冋
cc = 1.39cp 0.50 + 共17 − 0.06f cp兲 冉 冊册
fl
f cp
共9兲
Computational Simulation of Peak Stress and Strain
in Concrete
where the parameters are as previously defined. The R2 values for Having trained a reliable neural network, one can use it to make
Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲 are 0.94 and 0.98, respectively. Consequently, predictions on new data. However, the trained model is implicit
better cce versus ccp plots are obtained 关Figs. 5共d and e兲兴. and hidden in the network structure as well as the optimized
Furthermore, for comparison purpose, the values of RMS weights between the nodes. Therefore, computational simulation
error and r for the entire data set in various models are listed in of peak stress and strain in concrete under triaxial stress was
Table 5. For example, the values of RMS error and r by RK14- performed using the trained RBFN models.
F4共4–11-1兲 model were 6.28 MPa and 0.9924, while by RK14- The relative importance of the input variables used can be
E4共4–11-1兲 model were 0.00065 and 0.9983. Concurrently examined by the so-called sensitivity analysis. In sensitivity
RK8-F5共4–23-1兲 2 1 4 3 3 1 2 4 RK8-E5共4–16-1兲 3 1 4 2 3 1 4 2
RK8-F6共4–4-1兲 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 RK8-E6共4–9-1兲 3 1 4 2 4 1 3 2
RK8-F7共4–16-1兲 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 3 RK8-E7共4–12-1兲 3 1 4 2 3 1 4 2
RK8-F8共4–7-1兲 1 2 3 4 1 2 4 3 RK8-E8共4–11-1兲 3 1 4 2 4 1 3 2
RK14-F1共4–13-1兲 2 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 RK14-E1共4–13-1兲 2 1 4 3 3 2 4 1
RK14-F2共4–14-1兲 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 RK14-E2共4–15-1兲 2 1 4 3 1 3 4 2
RK14-F3共4–19-1兲 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 RK14-E3共4–17-1兲 2 1 4 3 3 4 2 1
RK14-F4共4–11-1兲 2 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 RK14-E4共4–11-1兲 3 1 4 2 1 4 2 3
RK14-F5共4–7-1兲 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 RK14-E5共4–6-1兲 4 1 3 2 1 3 4 2
RK14-F6共4–8-1兲 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 RK14-E6共4–5-1兲 2 1 4 3 3 2 4 1
RK14-F7共4–11-1兲 2 1 4 3 1 2 4 3 RK14-E7共4–11-1兲 3 1 4 2 4 2 3 1
RK14-F8共4–6-1兲 2 1 4 3 3 1 2 4 RK14-E8共4–12-1兲 3 1 4 2 4 1 3 2
RK14-F9共4–14-1兲 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 RK14-E9共4–11-1兲 3 1 4 2 1 2 3 4
RK14-F10共4–21-1兲 1 2 4 3 3 1 2 4 RK14-E10共4–12-1兲 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3
RK14-F11共4–15-1兲 2 1 4 3 1 3 4 2 RK14-E11共4–6-1兲 3 1 4 2 3 1 4 2
RK14-F12共4–10-1兲 2 1 3 4 2 1 4 3 RK14-E12共4–12-1兲 3 1 4 2 3 1 4 2
RK14-F13共4–10-1兲 2 1 4 3 1 3 4 2 RK14-E13共4–10-1兲 2 1 4 3 3 2 4 1
RK14-F14共4–18-1兲 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 4 RK14-E14共4–14-1兲 2 1 4 3 2 3 4 1
Note: The smaller the number of rank, the more important the variable.
analysis, the data set is submitted to the network repeatedly, 关Fig. 5共f兲兴. On the whole, however, the results indicate that reduc-
with each variable in turn treated as missing, and the resulting ing the number of inputs had a negative effect upon the prediction
network error is recorded. If an important variable is removed in accuracy of f cc and cc 共Table 5兲.
this fashion, the error will increase a great deal; if an unimportant Based on the above analysis, it is feasible to simulate the f cc
variable is removed, the error will not increase very much. The versus f l or cc versus f l relationship curves for concrete with a
sensitivity analysis of the RBFN models shows that lateral con- specific strength. For example, the RBFN simulated chart for the
fining pressure, f l, and maximum axial stress of unconfined con- relationship between f cc and f l are proposed for concrete with f cp
crete, f cp, were the main influential factors in predicting f cc and of 73.4 and 47.4 MPa 共Fig. 6兲. The experimental results are also
cc 共Table 6兲. Therefore, several RBFN models using only two shown in Fig. 6 for comparison. As can be seen from Fig. 6, the
parameters 共i.e., f l and f cp兲 or three parameters 共i.e., f l, f cp, and simulation curve demonstrates that the predicated peak stress in-
cp兲 as the input variables were also developed. The architecture creased with increasing confining pressure for a fixed concrete
of those ANN models is shown in Table 2 and they also have a strength. Especially, the simulation curve using four input vari-
good performance in predicting f cc and cc 共see Tables 3 and 4兲. ables fitted very well to experimental data 关Fig. 6共a兲兴. By contrast,
For example, Fig. 4共e兲 demonstrates that RK14-F4共2–7-1兲 model using two input variables, the resulting simulation curve became
using f l and f cp as the input variables had an accurate estimate of flatter at higher confining pressure and was thus less adequate
f cc. Another example is RK14-E4共2–12-1兲 model with f l and f cp 关Fig. 6共b兲兴. In addition, Fig. 7 shows the RBFN simulated chart
as the input variables. It could make an accurate estimate of cc for the relationship between cc and f l. The axial strain at peak
300 300
Peak strain (10-6)
Experimental result (fcp=47.4 MPa) RK14-E4(4-11-1) (fcp=73.4 MPa) RK14-E4(2-12-1) (fcp=73.4 MPa)
RK14-F4(2-7-1) (fcp=47.4 MPa)
250 RK14-F4(4-11-1) (fcp=47.4 MPa) 250 Test results (fcp=47.4 MPa)
60000 Test results (fcp=47.4 MPa) 60000 Test results (fcp=47.4 MPa)
RK14-E4(4-11-1) (fcp=47.4 MPa) RK14-E4(2-12-1) (fcp=47.4 MPa)
200 200 40000 40000
150 150
20000 20000
100 100
50 50 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Lateral confining pressure (MPa) Lateral confining pressure (MPa) Lateral confining pressure (MPa) Lateral confining pressure (MPa)
(a) (b) (a) (b)
Fig. 6. RBFN simulated peak stress versus lateral confining pressure Fig. 7. RBFN simulated peak strain versus lateral confining pressure
curve curve
160 160
120 120
Acknowledgments
80 80
50 75 100 125 150 50 75 100 125 150
fcp (MPa) fcp (MPa) The writer would like to express his appreciation for the financial
(a) (b) support received from the National Science Council, R.O.C.
under Grant No. NSC-92-2211-E-230-004.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFPE - Universidade Federal de Pernambuco on 11/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
15000 15000 Ahamd, S. H., and Shah, S. P. 共1982兲. “Complete triaxial stress-strain
Test results (fl=10 MPa) Test results (fl=10 MPa)
curves for concrete.” Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 108共4兲, 728–742.
Peak strain (10-6)