Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research


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

Assessment of load carrying capacity of castellated steel beams by


neural networks
Saeed Gholizadeh a, , Akbar Pirmoz b , Reza Attarnejad b
a

Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

University College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

article

info

Article history:
Received 29 July 2010
Accepted 2 January 2011
Keywords:
Castellated steel beams
Web-post buckling
Neural network
Back-propagation
Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system

abstract
In this paper, load carrying capacity of simply supported castellated steel beams, susceptible to webpost buckling, is studied. The accuracy of the nonlinear finite element (FE) method to evaluate the load
carrying capacity and failure mode of the beams is discussed. In view of the high computational burden
of the nonlinear finite element analysis, a parametric study is achieved based on FE and an empirical
equation is proposed to estimate the web-posts buckling critical load of the castellated steel beams.
Also as other alternatives to achieve this task, the traditional back-propagation (BP) neural network and
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) are employed. In this case, the accuracy of the proposed
empirical equation, BP network and ANFIS are examined by comparing their provided results with those of
conventional FE analysis. The numerical results indicate that the best accuracy associates with the ANFIS
and the neural network models provide better accuracy than the proposed equations.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Castellated I-shaped steel beams have vast application as
simply supported gravity girders. The presence of the web
openings in the castellated beams introduces different failure
modes at the perforated sections such as excessive stresses in teesections, excessive stresses in mid-depth of the web post, web-post
buckling, developing plastic Vierendeel mechanism [1]. Zaarour
and Redwood [2] investigated the web-post buckling failure mode
of 12 simply supported castellated beams loaded at mid-span
of the beam. Their study also contained the FE simulation of
a web post and flanges of one of the specimens by using the
NASTRAN software. A four sided shell element was used in FE
modeling considering material nonlinearity. Their study showed
that web-post buckling is a potential failure mode and should be
considered in the design. The web buckling failure mode of the
castellated beams due to shear force was studied by Redwood
and Demirdjian [3]. They tested four simply supported castellated
beams under concentrated load at the beam mid-length. The tests
showed that the web buckling depends on the restraining effects of
the beam flanges and lateraltorsional bracing of the upper flange.
A parallel parametric FE modeling was done by ignoring material
nonlinearity. Based on the results of 27 parametric models, they
proposed a relationship between the web-posts horizontal shear

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 441 337 1448.


E-mail address: s.gholizadeh@urmia.ac.ir (S. Gholizadeh).

0143-974X/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.01.001

capacity (which depends on the post geometry and its material


mechanical properties) and the applied vertical load. A procedure
was proposed to check the web-post buckling failure mode of the
simply supported beams subjected to uniformly distributed loads.
Mohebkhah [4] studied the inelastic lateraltorsional buckling of
the castellated beams subjected to concentrated and uniformly
distributed loads by using the FE method. First order SHELL 43
element of the ANSYS 5.4 element library was used to model the
beam flanges and the web. The FE models validation was done
by comparing the obtained results with the experimental data
of Nethercot and Kerdal tests [5]. The results of this parametric
study showed that the factor of Cb , proposed by AISC-LRFD [6] for
calculating the moment capacity of the I-beams is not accurate
enough and so equations were proposed for calculating the Cb
factor of the analyzed castellated beams of each loading case. The
computational burden of nonlinear FE analysis is high. In this case
neural network techniques can be effectively employed to reduce
the computational effort.
Artificial neural network (ANN) is a functional abstraction of
the biologic neural structures of the central nervous system [7].
They are powerful pattern recognizers and classifiers. They operate
as black box, model-free, and adaptive tools to capture and
learn significant structures in data. Their computing abilities
have been proven in the fields of prediction and estimation,
pattern recognition, and optimization [811]. They are suitable
particularly for problems too complex to be modeled and solved
by classical mathematics and traditional procedures. In the field
of steel beam identification using neural networks there are few

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

771

2. Finite element model of the castellated steel beam


Nonlinear FE method is used for studying the web-post buckling
behavior of the castellated steel beams. ANSYS 5.4 software is
used for this purpose. Beam flanges and web is modeled using
SHELL 43 element. The isotropic hardening rule with von Mises
yielding criterion is applied to simulate plastic deformations of the
material. Material fracture and residual stress are not considered.
Fig. 1 shows the FE mesh pattern of the beam 105 specimen
of Redwood and Demirdjian tests [3]. Both the material and
geometrical nonlinearities are taken into account in the FE Model.
2.1. Validation of the FE model

Fig. 1. Deformed shape of the beam 105 FE model.

published research in the literature. Guzelbey et al. [12] employed


back-propagation (BP) neural network for the estimation and
explicit formulation of available rotation capacity of wide flange
beams. They concluded that the BP network is more accurate
than numerical results, practical and fast compared to FE models.
Fonseca et al. [13] predicted steel beam patch load resistance using
BP network. They reported better accuracy of the neural network
compared with the existing methods. Fonseca et al. [14] developed
a neuro-fuzzy system to predict and classify the behavior of steel
beam web panels subjected to concentrated loads. This neurofuzzy system consists of one neuro-fuzzy classification model and
one patch load prediction neural network. The neuro-fuzzy model
was used to classify the beams according to its pertinence to
a specific structural response. Then, a neural network uses the
pertinence to finally determine the beam patch load resistance.
At a glance on the literature it can be observed that a few
research have been achieved on the web-post buckling of the
castellated steel beams. In the present study, by using nonlinear
FE an equation is presented for estimating the shear capacity of
the web post in the elastic and the inelastic range of the web-post
behavior. The proposed equations are based on the geometry of the
web posts and the web material yield stress. The calculated shear
capacity could be converted to the beam load and be compared
with other critical failure modes such as the T-section buckling,
weld fracture or lateraltorsional buckling of the beam. In this
paper, BP neural network and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system (ANFIS) [15] are also employed to predict the shear capacity
of the castellated steel beams. In the literature [1618] ANFIS has
been utilized for different purposes such as prediction, knowledge
discovery, medical decision making and disease diagnosis and has
not been tested yet for steel beams identification. The accuracy of
the proposed equation, BP network and ANFIS for the prediction of
the shear capacity is examined through the test samples.

In this study, the experimental test results of Redwood and


Demirdjian [3] and Zaarour and Redwood [2] are used for the
FE model validation. They have tested four simply supported
castellated beams in order to study the web-post buckling failure
mode. The specimens were loaded concentrically at the mid-point
of the beam. They also performed a FE analysis to predict the
maximum load of the specimens. Geometrical properties and the
results of the specimens are listed in Table 1. According to the
results listed in this table the average of the FE results error
is almost 7.3%. This is almost the same as the average error of
Redwood and Demirdjian [3] FE results which is 7.9%.
2.2. The parametric study
To perform a parametric study in order to find a relationship
for calculating castellated beams shear capacity, the parametric
FE model of the half of the specimen 107(b) is selected as the
base model. The nodes of both the tips of the model are restrained
against out-of-plane translation and the beam longitudinal axis
direction. Also the left side of the model is supported vertically
and by applying vertical downward displacement on the right end
nodes, a monotonic shear force is applied on the beam. Restraining
the beam end in the longitudinal axis direction is to achieve the
same moment in the both sides of the web post. The geometry of
the perforations, shown in Fig. 2, and the web-post thickness are
the variables of the parametric study. 140 FE models are analyzed
to find a relationship between the web perforations and the beam
shear capacity.
3. Shear capacity of the web post
Blodget [19] proposed the following method for shear load
carrying capacity of the castellated steel beams. The buckling of
the web post is evaluated by observing the developed stresses at
its edges, which is due to the flexure of the web post under shear
force at the middle of the web post. The value of the stress can be

Fig. 2. Geometric parameters of the FE models.

772

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

Table 1
Geometrical properties and the results of the specimens.
Model

dg (mm)

h (mm)

tw (mm)

e (mm)

bf (mm)

tf (mm)

Beam length (mm)

Bracings distance (mm)

Ptest (kN)

FE (kN)

Err (%)

107
106
105(b)
8-1a

308.5
308.5
308.5
307.3

133.1
133.1
133.1
55.25

3.56
3.56
3.56
3.43

77.8
70
65
48.5

66.9
66.9
66.9
59.44

4.59
4.59
4.59
4.70

2438
1828
1220
3050

500
300
610
3050

84.4
94.8
100.9
57

90.61
98.24
112.0
54.3

7.4
3.6
11.0
4.7

estimated using the Euler Beam Theory. According to Fig. 2, Eq. (1)
can be written for the radial stresses at the web-post edge:
fr =

w=
fr =

Vh (r f )

(1)

S
2
3

tw r 2 2

(2)

3Vh (r f )

(3)

2tw r 2 2

frmax =

3Vh tan

(4)
4tw e 2
where, fr and frmax are the redial stress and the maximum redial
stress at the web post, respectively and w is the section modulus
for the web post about its out-of-plane axis. The horizontal shear
force of the web post is expressed by Vh , as shown in Fig. 2.
Also, tw is the thickness of the web of the beam. Other geometric
parameters are shown in Fig. 2.
On the other hand, critical stress of the slender columns can be
calculated by Eq. (5)
KL/r < CC : Fr =
KL/r > CC : Fr =

= KL/r

FS

1.0

105 105

2
2CC2

]
(5a)

(5b)
(5c)

2 2 E

CC =

Fy

Fy

(5d)

Where FS and K in the above equation are the safety factor and
effective length factor, respectively, and here, both are supposed
to be 1.0. E, Fr and Fy are the modulus of elasticity, the buckling
and the yield stress of the web-post material, respectively. The
, L and r parameters are the slenderness factor, edge length and
radius of gyration of the web post, respectively. These parameters
are defined as follows:
h
L=
(6)
Sin
tw
r =
= 0.3tw .
(7)
12
Thus, the shear capacity of the castellated beam, V , limited by the
stress level of the web-posts edge, will be as below:
V = Vh

dg 2yt
S

4tw e 2 fr

(8)

.
(9)
3 tan( )
As will be shown later in this paper, for < CC , web-post buckling
occurs whenever the level of the maximum first principle passes
the yield stress or a little larger than it. Also, for > CC , the web
post buckles in the elastic range. However, there are some inherent
differences between the assumptions and the real conditions such
as:
The Euler Beam Theory does not consider the web-post shear
deflections.
Vh =

Fig. 3. The ratio of the shear capacity obtained by FE and the results of Eq. (8) for

< CC .

The boundary conditions of the web post is assumed to be the


same as a laterally supported pinned end column (K = 1.0),
while the web-post effective length factor depends on the beam
flange dimensions and the perforation geometry.
The non-prismatic web post is considered as a prismatic section
with a constant section.
Thus, the results of Eq. (8) and the results of the parametric study
are not incompatible. By processing the data obtained by the
parametric FE analysis, an attempt is made to define a modification
factor for Eq. (8) in later sections. Fig. 3 shows the ratio of the shear
capacity obtained by FE and the results of Eq. (8).
4. Data processing
A total number of 140 FE models of the web post are analyzed
in order to find a modification factor for Eq. (8). The beam depth,
the web thickness and dimensions of the perforation geometry
were the variable parameters. It is expected that the ratio of the
maximum shear capacity of the FE model (VFE ) to the VEq. (8) , named
, to be a function of the combination of some dimensionless
values, representing the various aspect ratios of the geometric
dimensions, as Eq. (10). However, it is clear that each aspect ratio
has a different effect on the hypothetical Eq. (10).

=
=

VFE
VEq. (8)

= f ( )

tw

(10a)

tw

h
tw

e
tw

4 5 6
d
e
h

(10b)

To achieve this, the value for each specimen is plotted against


the value of which is obtained from Eq. (10a). Then, by using a
curve fitting technique, a power function is detected to be the best
fit for the relationship between and values. By a trail and error
effort, the optimum parameters were found for Eq. (10) when R2
reaches its maximum value. The FE models are divided into two
groups, elastic and inelastic, based on the value of their .
According to Fig. 4, Eq. (11) is obtained for > CC :

= 8.36( 0.68 )
2.2 0.45 0.1 0.5
d
b
h
e
= 105
t
t
t
t
0.55 0.45
d
e

.
h

(11a)

(11b)

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

773

Fig. 4. The plot of versus .

Fig. 5. The accuracy of Eq. (11) for analyzed models.

And Eq. (12) is obtained for < CC :

= 4.28( 1.04 )
6 1.1 0.75 1.18

d
b
h
100
= 10
CC
t
t
t
e 0.5 d 0.6

5. Step by step implementation of the method


(12a)

The slenderness parameters (L and r) of the web post are


computed using Eqs. (6) and (7).

The and Cc factors are computed using Eq. (5).


The shear capacity, V , of the web post is computed using
Eqs. (8) and (9).
(12b)

Depending on the value of and Cc factors, the and are

As seen from Eq. (11), for > Cc which denotes the elastic buckling
limit, the parameter is independent of Cc which is a function
of the yield stress (see Eq. (5d)). The accuracy of Eq. (11) for the
analyzed models is shown in Fig. 5. From this figure a wide range
of models have a good consistency with Eq. (11).
It can be observed that the error of Eq. (11) for the most of
the first 70 models is less than 10%. These models correspond to
0 < < 3. For > 3, Eq. (11) conservatively underestimates
the shear capacity of the web post, as it approaches the boundary
( > CC ). This is due to the manner of selecting the bounds and the
inherent deficiencies in defining a proper slenderness factor () for
categorizing the expected performance (elastic or inelastic) of the
web post. However, the neural network techniques, implemented
in later sections, yield a uniform accuracy all over the range
and eliminate the deficiency of the presented method in the
boundary.
The first principal stress distribution in the web post at
the onset of the buckling was less or a little more than the
yield stress (Fy = 352 MPa). Fig. 6 shows the shear-forceverticaldisplacement curve and von Mises stress distribution in two FE
models whose properties are listed in Table 2.

By applying on V , the modified capacity of the web post is

found.
estimated.
It should be noted that the presented method is for Fy = 352
(MPa) and more parametric or experimental studies are needed for
generalizing the approach.
6. Predicting load carrying capacity of the castellated steel
beams
In this study, the BP network and ANFIS are employed for
predicting the load carrying capacity of the castellated steel beams.
By employing these computational tools, lengthy nonlinear FE
analysis need not be performed to evaluate the load carrying
capacity. In the next subsection, the theoretical background of both
the computational methods is briefly explained.
6.1. Back-propagation (BP) neural networks
Standard BP [20] is a gradient descent algorithm, in which the
network weights are moved along the negative of the gradient

774

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

Fig. 6. (a) The first principal stress distribution in the web post at the onset of the buckling (MPa). (b) Shear-forcevertical-deflection curve of the specimens.
Table 2
Geometric characteristics of two specimens.
Specimen

dg (mm)

h (mm)

tw (mm)

bf (mm)

tf (mm)

e (mm)

b (mm)

a
b

320
380.5

110
155

4.5
3.8

73
66.9

6.9
4.59

90
80

50
60

89.5
145.8

of the performance function. There are a number of variations on


the basic algorithm that are based on other standard optimization
techniques. In this study, the LevenbergMarquardt (LM) [21]
algorithm is employed. The basic BP algorithm adjusts the weights
in the steepest descent direction. This is the direction in which the
performance function is decreasing most rapidly. An iteration of
the algorithm is:
Wk+1 = Wk k Gk

(13)

where Wk is a vector of current weights, Gk is the current gradient,


and k is the learning rate.
Newtons method is an alternative to the conjugate gradient
methods for fast optimization. The basic step of Newtons method
is:
1
Wk+1 = Wk A
k Gk

(14)

1
where A
k is the Hessian matrix of the performance index at the
current values of the weights.
Newtons method often converges faster than conjugate
gradient methods. Unfortunately, it is complex and expensive to
compute the Hessian matrix for feedforward neural networks. The
LM algorithm was designed to approach the second order training
speed without having to compute the Hessian matrix. In the LM
algorithm the weights updating is achieved as follows:

Wk+1 = Wk [J T J + I ]1 J T E

(15)

where J is the Jacobian matrix that contains the first derivatives of


the network errors with respect to the weights, and E is a vector
of network errors. Also, is a correction factor. The value of is
decreased after each successful step and is increased only when a
tentative step would increase the performance function [22].
Overfitting is one of the serious problems that occur during
neural network training. In this case, the error on the training set
is very small value, but by presenting new data to the network
the error is large. In [23] two techniques are proposed to prevent
overfitting: Early Stopping and Regularization.
In Early Stopping the available data is divided into train, test
and validation sets. The error on the validation set is monitored
during the training process. When the network begins to overfit
the data, the error on the validation set typically begins to rise. In
this case, the training is stopped, and the weights at the minimum
of the validation error are returned.
In Regularization the performance function of the neural
network is modified. The typical performance function used for
training feedforward neural networks is the mean sum of squares
of the network errors.
mse =

m
1

m i=1

Ei2

(16)

where, m is the size of Ei .


Improved generalization is achieved by adding a term that
consists of the mean of the sum of squares of the network weights

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

775

Fig. 7. The architecture of a typical ANFIS.

In this study, the Gaussian MFs defined below is utilized:

as follows:
msereg = (mse) +

n
(1 )

(In1 ci )2
,
Ai (In1 , i , ci ) = exp
2i2

(In1 cj )2
Bj (In2 , j , cj ) = exp
,
2j2

Wj2

(17)

j =1

where and n are the performance ratio and number of network


weights, respectively.
Using this performance function causes the network to have
smaller weights, and it forces the network response to be smoother
and less likely to overfit. In [23] it is mentioned that for the
function approximation tasks, Regularization generally provides
better generalization performance than Early Stopping. This is
because Regularization does not require that a validation data set
be separated out of the training data set; it uses all the data. This
advantage is especially noticeable when the size of the data set is
not large. In this paper, the Regularization technique is employed.

6.2. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)

Rule 1: if In1 is A1 and In2 is B1 then f11 = p11 In1 + q11 In2 + r11
Rule 2: if In1 is A1 and In2 is B2 then f12 = p12 In1 + q12 In2 + r12
Rule 3: if In1 is A2 and In2 is B1 then f21 = p21 In1 + q21 In2 + r21

(18)

O2ij = Wij = Ai (In1 )Bj (In2 ),

i = 1, 2

= Bj (In2 ),

j = 1, 2.

(21)

Wij
2

i, j = 1, 2

(22)

Wij

i =1 j =1

which are called normalized firing strengths.


Each node in layer 4 is an adaptive node, whose output is simply
the product of the normalized firing strength and a first order
polynomial (for a first order Sugeno model). The outputs of this
layer are given by:
O4ij = W ij fij = W ij (pij In1 + qij In2 + rij ),

i, j = 1, 2.

(23)

Parameters in this layer are referred to as consequent parameters.


The single node in layer 5 is a fixed node labeled , which
computes the overall output as the summation of all incoming
signals, i.e.
Out = O5 =

2
2

W ij fij

i=1 j=1

where A1 , A2 , B1 and B2 are labels for representing membership


functions for the inputs In1 and In2 , respectively. Also, pij , qij and
rij (i, j = 1, 2) are parameters of the output membership functions.
As can be seen from Fig. 7, the architecture of a typical ANFIS
consists of five layers, described below:
All the nodes in layer 1 generate membership grades of the
inputs. Its outputs, O, are given as:

O1Bj

i, j = 1 , 2 .

The nodes in layer 3 are also fixed nodes labeled N, indicating


that they play a normalization role in the network. The outputs of
this layer can be represented as:

Rule 4: if In1 is A2 and In2 is B2 then f22 = p22 In1 + q22 In2 + r22

O1Ai = Ai (In1 ),

(20)
j = 1, 2

where {i , ci } and {j , cj } are the premise parameters of the MFs,


governing the Gaussian functions.
The nodes of layer 2 are fixed nodes labeled indicating that
they perform as a simple multiplier. The outputs of this layer are
represented as:

O3ij = W ij =

The ANFIS represents a useful neural network approach for the


solution of function approximation problems. It is a hybrid network which uses neural network learning algorithms and fuzzy
reasoning to map inputs into an output. For simplicity, a typical
ANFIS architecture with only two inputs leading to four rules and
one output for the first order Sugeno fuzzy model is expressed
[24,25]. It is also assumed that each input has two associated membership functions (MFs). It is evident that this architecture can be
easily generalized to any arbitrary dimensions. For a first order
Sugeno fuzzy model, a typical rule set with four fuzzy ifthen rules
can be expressed as:

i = 1, 2

(19)

2
2

W ij (pij In1 + qij In2 + rij )

i=1 j=1

2
2

[(W ij pij )In1 + (W ij qij )In2 + (W ij rij )]

(24)

i=1 j=1

where the overall output Out is a linear combination of the consequent parameters when the values of the premise parameters are
fixed.
Modifiable parameters of the ANFIS architecture are placed
in Layers 1 and 4. During the training phase, adjustment of

776

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

Fig. 8. Pseudocode of exhaustive search by ANFIS.

the modifiable parameters is facilitated by a gradient vector.


For a given set of parameters the gradient vector gives a
measure of how well the fuzzy inference system is modeling the
inputoutput data. When the gradient vector is obtained, any of the
optimization techniques can be applied to modify the parameters
to reduce some error measure. In this study, a hybrid algorithm
is employed for training whose mathematical background can be
found in [26]. Generally, this training algorithm includes forward
and backward passes. In the forward pass, the input membership
function parameters are hold fixed, node outputs go forward
until Layer 4 and the output membership function parameters
are identified by the least squares method. In the backward pass,
the output membership function parameters are held fixed, the
errors propagate backward and the input membership function
parameters are updated by the gradient descent method.
6.3. Finding the most influential inputs using ANFIS
Besides the predicting role of the ANFIS, it can be used to find
the most influential inputs, ni , from the whole candidates, nt , on
the output in the framework of an exhaustive search by building an
ANFIS model for each combination of input vector components and
training it for a little epoch. By using this technique, the dimension
of the input vector of the neural networks to predict the load
carrying capacity of the castellated steel beams can be reduced
and the accuracy of the prediction is improved. The pseudocode
of exhaustive search by ANFIS to determine the ni most influential
inputs from nt candidates is shown in Fig. 8.
After finding the most influential inputs, they can be employed
as the inputs instead of the initial inputs, in the training phase of
neural network models. In this case, as the number of input vector
components is reduced, the training process is achieved efficiently.
7. Numerical results of application of the neural network
models
Initial input and output vectors of the neural network models
include respectively seven and one components as follows:
In = {In1 In2 In3 In4 In5 In6 In7 }T = {dg h tw bf tf e b}T

(25)

Out = Out 1 = V .

(26)

By performing an exhaustive search, the most influential inputs


are determined and used for training the neural network models.
Therefore, in this study, for predicting load carrying capacity of the
castellated steel beams, four alternatives are examined as follows:

Table 3
The most influential inputs.
ni

1
2
3
4
5
6

Optimal combination

{tw }
{h tw }
{dg h tw }
{dg h tw e}
{dg h tw e b}
{dg h tw bf e b}

RMSE
Training

Testing

22.5000
12.9000
5.4000
3.0949
2.9387
2.9929

26.6500
15.8000
3.6000
2.7977
3.9599
3.8452

Table 4
Testing results.
Model

EQ
BP1
BP2
ANFIS1
ANFIS2

Error Metrics

Training Time (min.)

MAPE

MAXE

RMSE

8.3500
5.1360
4.1406
3.9200
2.6406

24.0100
18.8082
15.5511
14.0949
8.4183

6.3834
4.0625
3.5611
2.7276
2.0631

4.75
4.02
4.38
1.96

1. BP model employing all components of the input vector (BP1).


2. ANFIS model employing all components of the input vector
(ANFIS1).
3. BP model employing the most influential components of the
input vector (BP2).
4. ANFIS model employing the most influential components of the
input vector (ANFIS2).
In all numerical simulation stages a Pentium IV 3 GHz is
employed. In this study 140 samples are randomly generated
and their load carrying capacities are determined by conventional
nonlinear FE analysis. The CPU time spent to analyze each sample
is 9.5 min. The number of the samples employed for training and
testing of the neural network models are 100 and 40, respectively.
All the training and testing samples are separately presented
in the Appendix in Tables A.1 and A.2. For testing samples the
corresponding errors of all the models are also presented.
7.1. The most influential inputs
To determine the most influential inputs, among the seven
existing components, an exhaustive search is achieved by ANFIS
and the results are given in Table 3.
The given results indicate that for ni = 1 to ni = 4 the training
errors decrease and the testing errors are acceptable. But for ni = 5

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

777

Fig. 9. Comparison of the errors of the ANFIS2, BP2 and the proposed equation.
Table A.1
The training samples.
No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Inputs

Output

dg

tw

bf

tf

380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
180.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
290.0
290.0
320.0
320.0
320.0
380.5
380.5
380.5

60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
80.0
80.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
60.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
70.0
70.0
75.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
70.0
70.0
68.0
95.0
97.0
110.0
110.0
110.0
120.0
120.0
120.0

3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
4.50
4.50
4.00
4.00
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
3.50
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.00
4.70
4.70
4.50
4.50
4.50
3.56
3.56
3.56

66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
64.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
66.9
66.9
66.9

4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.30
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
4.59
4.59
4.59

77.8
70.0
60.0
55.0
35.0
30.0
65.0
30.0
77.8
30.0
77.8
30.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
35.0
45.0
55.0
70.0
70.0
60.0
40.0
30.0
60.0
50.0
30.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
60.0
50.0
30.0
60.0
50.0
30.0
40.0
30.0
30.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
93.0
70.0
60.0
40.0

76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
30.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
70.0
65.0
65.0
55.0
55.0
51.0
50.0
50.0
76.2
76.2
76.2

113.00
115.60
117.30
122.65
132.30
134.00
103.30
115.35
123.45
138.88
101.14
104.14
64.51
64.24
66.16
67.37
64.86
60.40
80.13
77.40
75.50
74.30
85.60
95.40
96.72
102.00
104.30
88.00
88.70
92.20
78.50
77.38
49.27
93.90
97.43
100.20
90.60
92.90
101.60
74.55
77.45
65.09
90.58
90.07
86.18
86.46
86.95
77.80
73.20
72.80

and ni = 6 training errors show a slight reduction while testing


errors increase. In this case the best results associate with ni = 4.
Therefore the most influential inputs are as follows:
Ininf = {dg h tw e} .
T

The time spent in this stage is about 0.75 min.

(27)

No.

51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

Inputs

Output

dg

tw

bf

tf

380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
550.0
380.5
350.0
350.0
550.0
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
300.0
500.0
400.0
450.0
400.0
400.0
380.5
500.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
400.0
500.0
500.0
500.0
180.0
210.0

120.0
140.0
160.0
160.0
150.0
150.0
155.0
250.0
160.0
160.0
140.0
170.0
160.0
160.0
160.0
160.0
133.1
133.1
133.1
133.1
133.1
133.1
133.1
133.1
110.0
110.0
110.0
90.0
90.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
140.0
140.0
60.0
70.0

3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.80
5.00
3.20
3.20
3.20
4.30
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.40

66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
64.0
73.0

4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
6.30
6.90

30.0
77.8
30.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
95.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
60.0
50.0
30.0
77.8
70.0
60.0
60.0
55.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
77.8
55.0
30.0
77.8
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
80.0
80.0
70.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
50.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
60.0
53.0

76.2
40.0
50.0
40.0
45.0
60.0
60.0
80.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
35.0
50.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
45.0
30.0
30.0
42.5

76.05
52.23
43.30
39.97
43.98
44.88
47.70
62.69
30.84
20.37
34.81
128.00
40.43
40.75
41.95
46.35
56.90
58.91
60.56
53.70
60.87
62.72
63.22
65.16
76.86
77.28
84.69
85.48
105.30
54.90
85.00
54.74
91.26
75.88
96.39
98.43
59.00
41.00
33.00
38.55
42.00
42.30
42.45
38.58
60.01
109.42
62.00
39.50
24.35
33.14

7.2. Training BP and ANFIS models


Load carrying capacity of the castellated steel beams is
predicted by the mentioned four alternatives. In order to assess the
prediction accuracy of the neural network models, the following
error metrics are used:

778

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

Table A.2
The testing samples with corresponding Err (%).
No.

Inputs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Err =

Output

Err (%)

dg

tw

bf

tf

PE

BP1

BP2

ANFIS1

ANFIS2

380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
180.0
180.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
210.0
320.0
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
380.5
450.0
400.0
400.0
475.0
400.0
400.0
500.0
500.0
180.0
190.0
210.0
210.0
210.0

60.0
60.0
60.0
80.0
80.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
70.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
50.0
70.0
62.0
108.0
120.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
160.0
160.0
160.0
133.1
133.1
133.1
90.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
140.0
60.0
60.0
70.0
70.0
70.0

3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
4.50
4.40
4.40
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.00
4.50
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.56
2.00
2.50
3.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.40
2.40

66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
64.0
64.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
66.9
64.0
64.0
73.0
73.0
73.0

4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
6.30
6.30
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
6.90
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
6.30
6.30
6.90
6.90
6.90

65.0
50.0
40.0
77.8
45.0
50.0
60.0
30.0
70.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
50.0
90.0
80.0
50.0
77.8
80.0
77.8
70.0
40.0
65.0
50.0
30.0
50.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
60.0
30.0
40.0
60.0
40.0
65.0
63.0
69.3
64.5

76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
30.0
30.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
45.0
65.0
75.0
55.0
76.2
76.2
50.0
50.0
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
40.0
45.0
60.0
30.0
30.0
35.0
42.5
42.5

117.93
125.37
129.84
96.40
108.50
131.55
65.50
65.30
77.67
99.58
91.96
78.04
98.09
76.50
62.86
88.15
71.56
69.56
52.38
39.12
40.24
40.43
41.80
58.65
60.70
64.53
98.43
70.00
58.75
83.34
74.56
39.00
46.30
76.00
50.00
25.00
23.51
32.50
31.13
33.84

4.99
3.00
8.00
2.00
12.00
11.00
11.00
3.99
7.00
2.00
3.00
0.98
8.00
12.00
7.00
0.01
1.00
8.00
13.00
10.00
10.00
11.00
10.00
7.00
6.00
2.00
11.00
19.00
3.00
10.00
13.00
2.00
9.99
5.00
2.00
17.00
10.00
15.00
19.00
24.00

2.0066
0.2848
0.2869
1.3002
3.1711
0.5082
3.5543
6.5927
2.3187
0.7960
0.2406
10.143
3.0189
3.1478
2.9249
6.6283
12.574
0.8839
1.1691
4.3316
0.1629
2.2179
10.0082
2.7208
1.2123
0.7824
4.7843
12.7743
5.7746
12.0893
5.1185
3.1891
2.7845
4.1281
18.8081
9.1307
6.2653
11.2684
10.3956
15.9409

0.8260
1.1010
1.3223
0.7809
1.7012
4.3682
3.6288
3.2451
3.4318
6.0456
6.1452
3.4922
2.6144
1.6465
2.9645
2.3905
4.3212
2.9289
2.8689
1.9111
4.7685
5.5024
0.6229
0.1149
0.6482
5.3690
3.5650
7.2900
0.3839
5.9432
11.7301
4.1848
2.5501
15.5510
6.5775
3.3134
9.7007
6.7927
2.7755
10.5057

0.9212
2.1866
3.6417
3.2929
1.0937
2.0547
1.4979
4.5464
3.0287
0.7262
2.7575
2.4619
0.0982
3.3693
3.7741
0.6593
7.1498
5.4941
4.0895
7.4445
14.0948
10.0768
3.4645
1.0478
3.3511
4.4442
0.5482
4.1053
9.6686
1.5147
1.3039
0.8648
9.5044
4.7505
0.2211
12.7668
4.9085
3.8836
1.2614
4.7300

0.0791
0.5058
0.3890
0.8859
0.9866
0.6327
2.6492
1.9347
5.6560
1.9928
3.7933
1.5102
1.0625
0.2537
7.2444
0.3328
5.4820
3.0555
1.5187
3.7347
4.9951
0.4630
3.0860
3.3476
0.8249
3.3396
0.1436
0.1822
4.0893
3.1642
8.3223
3.7951
1.9428
2.1186
3.3317
3.4685
8.4183
0.8890
2.2133
3.7884

|V ex V pr |

MAPE =

V ex
ns
1

ns i=1

100

Erri

i = 1, 2, . . . , ns

ns
1
RMSE =
(Viex Vipr )2
MAXE = max{Erri },

ns i=1

(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)

where, V ex and V pr are the exact and predicted values of the load
carrying capacity, respectively. Also, Err, MAPE, ns , MAXE, and RMSE
are absolute percentage error, mean absolute percentage error, the
number of testing samples, maximum absolute percentage error
and root mean squared error, respectively.
In order to train the BP models, one hidden layer with various
number of the neurons are examined and the best results are
obtained by employing four neurons. This means that the best
architecture for BP models include four hidden layer neurons. The
results of testing all neural network models and the proposed
equation are given in Table 4. In the case of the BP2 and ANFIS2, the
training time includes the time spent to finding the most influential
inputs.
It is observed that the BP2 is superior to the BP1 model, also the
ANFIS2 is superior to the ANFIS1 and this emphasizes the impact of
employing the most influential inputs on the numerical accuracy of

the neural network models. This means that employing the most
influential inputs not only decreases the training time, especially
in ANFIS, but also increases the accuracy of the neural network
models. The given results imply that the accuracy of all the neural
network models is better than that of the proposed equation while
the ANFIS2 model in better than the BP2 model in terms of accuracy
and training elapsed time. Therefore the ANFIS2 is the best model
among all of the employed models. The errors of the ANFIS2, BP2
and proposed equation are compared in Fig. 9.
8. Concluding remarks
By using the nonlinear FE method, the parametric study is
done on the critical load carrying capacity of the web posts of
the castellated steel beams. To achieve this, a parametric model
of a castellated beam is created (based on the previously tested
specimens) for which the geometric properties of the flanges, the
web and the perforations of the web are set as parameters. Then,
a web post with half of the adjacent perforations is considered
as a base model for creating 140 FE models. Based on the results
of 140 FE models, empirical equations are presented to predict
the load carrying capacity of the castellated steel beams. More
experimental and reliability analyses are needed in order to codify
the method.
Also the BP network and ANFIS are employed as other alternatives to achieve prediction task. In order to improve the prediction accuracy as well as the training time, the most influential

S. Gholizadeh et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 67 (2011) 770779

input components on output are found by achieving exhaustive


searches using ANFIS. The most influential inputs are employed in
the training processes of BP and ANFIS models and significant improvement is observed. The numerical results imply that the accuracy of the predicted critical load carrying capacities by neural
network models is better than that of the proposed equations and
among the BP and ANFIS models, the ANFIS model provides the
best accuracy. Also it is observed that the time spent to train the
ANFIS model, using the most influential inputs, is less than that of
the BP network. Therefore, the ANFIS model can be effectively employed to predict the load carrying capacity of the castellated steel
beams.
Appendix
In this Appendix all the employed samples in the training and
testing modes are presented in Tables A.1 and A.2, respectively.
Also for the testing samples the corresponding errors of each
neural network model in the simulation phase are given.
References
[1] Kerdal D, Nethercot DA. Failure modes for castellated beams. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 1984;4:295315.
[2] Zaarour W, Redwood R. Web buckling in thin castellated beams. Journal of
Structural Engineering ASCE 1996;122:8606.
[3] Redwood R, Demirdjian S. Castellated beam web buckling in shear. Journal of
Structural Engineering ASCE 1998;124:12027.
[4] Mohebkhah A. The moment-gradient factor in lateraltorsional buckling on
inelastic castellated beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60:
148194.
[5] Nethercot DA, Kerdal D. Lateraltorsional buckling of castellated beams. The
Structural Engineer, London 1982;60B(3):5361.
[6] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Load and resistance factor
design specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL): AISC; 1999.
[7] Adeli H, Hung SL. Machine learning: neural networks, genetic algorithms, and
fuzzy systems. New York: Wiley; 1995.
[8] Gholizadeh S, Salajegheh E, Torkzadeh P. Structural optimization with
frequency constraints by genetic algorithm using wavelet radial basis function
neural networks. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2008;312:31631.

779

[9] Gholizadeh S, Salajegheh E. Optimal design of structures for time history


loading by Swarm intelligence and an advanced metamodel. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2009;198:293649.
[10] Gholizadeh S, Salajegheh J, Salajegheh E. An intelligent neural system
for predicting structural response subject to earthquakes. Advances in
Engineering Software 2009;40:6309.
[11] Gholizadeh S, Salajegheh E. Optimal seismic design of steel structures by
an efficient soft computing based algorithm. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 2010;66:8595.
[12] Guzelbey IH, Cevikb A, Gogus MT. Prediction of rotation capacity of wide flange
beams using neural networks. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2006;
62:95061.
[13] Fonseca ET, da S Vellasco PCG, de Andrade SAL, Vellasco MMBR. Neural
network evaluation of steel beam patch load capacity. Advances in Engineering
Software 2003;34:76372.
[14] Fonseca ET, da S Vellasco PCG, Vellasco MMBR, de Andrade SAL. A neurofuzzy evaluation of steel beams patch load behaviour. Advances in Engineering
Software 2008;39:55872.
[15] Jang JSR. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference systems. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 1993;23:66585.
[16] Fu JY, Li QS, Xie ZN. Prediction of wind loads on a large flat roof using fuzzy
neural networks. Engineering Structures 2006;28:15361.
[17] Topcu IE, Sardemir M. Prediction of compressive strength of concrete containing fly ash using artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. Computational
Materials Science 2008;41:30511.
[18] Topcu IE, Sardemir M. Prediction of rubberized concrete properties using
artificial neural network and fuzzy logic. Construction and Building Materials
2008;22:53240.
[19] Blodgett Omer W. Design of welded structures. James F Lincoln Arc Welding
Foundation; 1966.
[20] Hagan MT, Demuth HB, Beal MH. Neural network design. Boston: PWS
Publishing Company; 1996.
[21] Hagan MT, Menhaj M. Training feed-forward networks with the Marquardt
algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 1999;5:98993.
[22] Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning representations by backpropagating errors. Nature 1986;323:5336.
[23] Hagan MT, Demuth HB, Beale MH. Neural network design. Boston, MA: PWS
Publishing Co; 1997.
[24] Wang YM, Elhag T. An adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for bridge risk
assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 2008;34:3099106.
[25] Sugeno M. Industrial applications of fuzzy control. Elsevier Science Pub Co;
1985.
[26] Jang JSR. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference systems. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 1993;23:66585.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai