ARTICLE IN PRESS

Engineering Structures ( ) –
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without

shear reinforcement
Sungmoon Jung a , Kang Su Kim b,∗
a Belcan Engineering Group, Inc., Caterpillar Champaign Simulation Center, 1901 S. First Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA
b School of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, The University of Seoul, 90 Jeonnong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-743, Republic of Korea

Received 1 March 2007; received in revised form 8 October 2007; accepted 9 October 2007

Abstract

Structural engineers heavily rely on computer software to perform structural analysis, and they increasingly computerize design procedures
to avoid manual repetitions. To benefit fully from the computerization, it is necessary to utilize the domain knowledge contained in a database
such as a concrete shear database used in this paper. A knowledge-based system uses a database of knowledge in combination with its retrieval
mechanism such as artificial neural networks (ANN) to imitate problem-solving strategy of human. This paper presents an application of the
knowledge-based approach, utilizing the shear database and retrieval of information using ANN. The database can be used more extensively than
regression of shear strength that had been reported in other literature. As a demonstration, two models are developed and compared with design
equations. The first model estimates shear strength, and the second model systematically provides conservative estimation. Although both models
already outperform all existing design equations, they can be easily revised for further improvement whenever additional experimental data sets
become available.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reinforced concrete beam; Shear strength; Artificial neural networks; Shear database; Shear mechanism; Shear behavior

1. Introduction Given the limited understanding of shear and errors in

The response of structural concrete members to the
actions of bending moment is quite well-understood, and,
consequently, design procedures and provisions for bending
moment are reasonably effective and consistent. Considerable
progress has also been made over the last two decades in
predicting shear behavior of structural concrete members, and
some of the models have been used as basis for the derivation
of shear design procedures. However, due to the complex
shear transfer mechanisms in concrete beams and various
influencing parameters, our understanding on shear is still
relatively limited. Many of the shear design code provisions are
principally empirical, vary greatly from code to code, and do
not provide for uniform factors of safety against failure. For
these reasons, the design and behavior of structural concrete to
shear is an important and ongoing area of research in structural
concrete.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2210 5707; fax: +82 2 2248 0382.
E-mail address: kangkim@uos.ac.kr (K.S. Kim).
empirical equations, a comprehensive database of experimental
results (for example, Reineck et al. [1] and Kim [2]) gives
us an opportunity to improve our shear prediction capability.
However, it is not easy to maximize the use of the shear
database if we do not have a computerized procedure. Fig. 1
schematically shows the procedure how an engineer would
use the database to improve the prediction of shear strength.
Throughout the procedure, an engineer will have a chance to
refer to the shear database to judge the quality of the shear
strength prediction, but because of the lack of quantitative
measures only an experienced engineer will fully benefit from
the database. Also, computerizing the whole procedure would
be nearly impossible even if the computerization was necessary
to improve the efficiency.
Many researchers have recognized the importance of uti-
lizing experimental results in combination with a computer-
ized procedure. The most common approach to date has been a
knowledge-based system, which uses a database of knowledge
in combination with its retrieval mechanism such as artificial

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008

Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures ( ) –

Fig. 1. Human interpretation of the shear database to improve the shear

prediction.

neural networks (ANN) to imitate problem-solving strategy of Fig. 2. Knowledge-based shear prediction utilizing the shear database.
human. Learning, or finding out the best statistical represen-
tation of the database, is automated with a set of rules. There
have been various studies of the prediction of shear strength
using ANN. Goh [3] investigated the feasibility of using ANN
to evaluate the ultimate shear strength of deep reinforced con-
crete beams in shear. Sanad and Saka [4] used 111 experimental
data to compose an ANN that predicts ultimate shear strength
of reinforced concrete deep beams. Cladera and Mari [5,6] per-
formed parametric study with ANN shear models, and used
the information in proposing new design equations. Other re-
searchers, in their independent research, also studied ANN
shear models (Mansour et al. [7], Oreta [8]). Recently, the accu-
racy of ANN models has further improved by using larger shear
database. Seleemah [9] and Kim et al. [10], in their independent Fig. 3. Shear transfer/actions contributing to shear resistance.
research, used a new shear database that has 398 experimen-
tal data (Reineck et al. [1], Kim [2]). El-Chabib et al. [11,12] possible non-conservative prediction of ANN. In order to show
used another large database to develop ANN models, and to the effectiveness of the models, we have selected a database
study the effect of stirrups on shear. Nehdi et al. [13] applied of reinforced concrete members without shear reinforcement.
ANN approach in estimating the shear capacity of FRP rein- We will first review the concrete shear behavior and function
forced concrete beams. ANN also has been successfully used mapping using ANN. The proposed knowledge-based approach
to model other properties of concrete such as creep [14], defor- and two prediction models are presented afterwards.
mation due to flexural failure [15], and inelastic moments [16].
While the papers reviewed above employed ANN for 2. Shear in reinforced concrete members without shear
creating complex functional relationship between input (design reinforcement
parameters) and output (shear strength), we focus on the
development of a whole system (Fig. 2) that integrates the 2.1. Shear transfer mechanisms and influencing parameters
database and the ANN models. Flexibility of ANN approach
allows us to maximize the use of the database. ANN can Shear transfer mechanisms in concrete beams are complex
reproduce any input–output relationship that we want to map, and difficult to identify clearly due to the complex stress
and the output does not have to be restricted to shear strength. redistributions that occur after cracking. Shear transfer
As a demonstration, two models are developed and compared mechanisms have been shown to be influenced by various
with design equations in this paper. A best-fit shear model in factors. Fig. 3 describes the basic mechanisms of shear transfer
Fig. 2 automatically finds out an ANN model that has the least in accordance with the findings of the state-of-the-art reports
standard deviation. A set of rules should be used in combination by joint ASCE-ACI Committee 426 [17] and joint ASCE-ACI
with ANN, such as to minimize the maximum mean square Committee 445 [18], which are now generally accepted in the
error. A conservative shear model in Fig. 2 finds out the required research community. The important shear transfer mechanisms
correction terms if a conservative estimation is necessary. The are shear in the uncracked compression zone of the beam,
conservative estimator would be important in the practical interface shear transfer due to aggregate interlock or surface
use of ANN, because some engineers are concerned about roughness of the cracks, dowel action of the longitudinal
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures (
Table 1
Summary of different approaches (units: MPa, mm)
Eqs No. Approaches
1 ACI318-02 Eq. 11-3
2 ACI318-02 Eq. 11-5
3 Zsutty
4 Okamura et al.
5 EC2 (2003)
6 JSCE (1986)
7 AASHTO LRFD (2002)
Vc : Shear strength provided by concrete; f c0 : Concrete compressive strength; bw : Web width; d: Effective depth; Vu : Shear force; Mu : External moment; ρ` , ρw :
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (As` /bw d); As` : Amount of longitudinal reinforcement; a: Shear span; Nu : Axial force; Ac : Cross sectional area of concrete.
reinforcement, and residual tensile stresses across the crack.
However, it should be noted that different researchers impose
different levels of relative importance to this basic mechanisms
of shear transfer.
Several parameters have been identified as having a
significant influence on the contributions of the shear resistance
mechanisms and thus the ultimate shear capacity. The
influences of the most dominant mechanisms are known as
concrete strength, size effect, span to depth ratio, longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, axial force, and there are other influencing
parameters such as support conditions, loading points, etc.
The shear strength increases as concrete strength increases.
In many design codes, the shear strength of a member is usually
taken as directly proportional to ( f c0 )0.33–0.5 , which indicates
that the concrete tensile strength is being used as the governing
parameter.
The shear strength of reinforced and prestressed beams
without shear reinforcement decreases as the member depth
increases, which is called the “size effect” in shear. Both the
tests by Kani [19] on size effect in 1967 and the tests by Shioya
et al. [20] effectively demonstrated this effect. While Bazant
et al. [21] explained the size effect by fracture mechanics,
Collins et al. [22] and Reineck [23,24] explained the size effect
by a reduction of the interface shear transfer due to the larger
crack widths occurring in larger members.
As the shear span to depth ratio (a/d) decreases, shear
strength increases. Many empirical formulas for calculating
shear strength include the a/d ratio to account for the influence
of this parameter. This phenomenon is quite significant in
members with the a/d ratio less than about 2.5, because a
portion of shear may be transmitted directly to the support by
an inclined strut. For those deep members, therefore, it is more
appropriate to use strut-and-tie models than sectional design
approaches. It should be noted that all test data considered in
this paper have a/d ratios greater than 2.4.
For the same magnitude of loading, as the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio decreases, flexural stresses and strains
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
) – 3
Shear strength (Vc )
Vc = 16 f c0 bw d
p
 
Vc = 0.16 f c0 + 17 VMu d bw d
p
 1/3 u
Vc = 2.2 f c0 ρ` da bw d
1/3
(100ρ` )1/3

0 1/3 0.75 + 1.40
Vc = 0.2
(d/1000) 1/4 ( f c ) a/d bw d
Vc = [0.12k(100ρl f ck )1/3 − 0.15Nu /Aq
c ]bw d ≥ (vmin − 0.15Nu /Ac )bw d
1/2 200 ≤ 2.0, f = f 0 − 1.6 (MPa) ≈ 0.95 f 0
where vmin = 0.035k 3/2 f ck , k = 1 + d ck c c
Vc = 0.9βd β p βn (0.2127)( f c0 )1/3 bw d
βd = (1000/d)1/4 ≤ 1.5
β p = (100ρw )1/3 ≤ 1.5
0 < βn ≤ 2.0: Taking account of moment and axial compressive stress
p
Vc = 0.083β f c0 bv dv
β is given in table as a function of εx , (v/ f c0 or sxe )
increase. Thus, the crack widths increase and the shear strength
is lowered. Further, as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio
decreases, dowel action also decreases.
When the members are subjected to axial tension, the
shear strengths of such members decrease. By contrast, axial
compression increases the depth of the uncracked compression
zone, decreases the width of the shear cracks, and thus the
interface shear transfer is increased.
2.2. Approaches on shear transfer
As mentioned above, shear transfer actions and mechanisms
in concrete beams are complex and different researchers
impose different levels of relative importance to the basic
mechanisms of shear transfer. Models on shear behavior of
reinforced concrete members without shear reinforcement are
generally based on structural behavior and failure, fracture
mechanics, and nonlinear finite element analysis. While
some of these models are simplified and utilized in design
code provisions, most of them are quite complicated and
difficult to apply. Consequently, most shear design codes
use empirical equations. Some of the empirical equations
and design code approaches for shear strength of reinforced
concrete members are summarized in Table 1; ACI318-
02 [25] Eq. 11-3 & 11-5, Zsutty’s equation [26], Okamura’s
equation [27], EC2 (Eurocode 2) [28], JSCE (Japan Society
of Civil Engineers) [29], AASHTO LRFD (AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications) [30].
The Eq. 11-3 in ACI 318-02 is the simplest and one of the
most widely used equations in the evaluation of shear strength
of reinforced concrete members. The Eq. 11-3 only accounts
for the influence of concrete strength for concrete contribution,
and thus it often provides overestimations or underestimations
for members having different characteristics, which will be
explained later. Compared to the Eq. 11-3 in ACI 318-02, the
Eq. 11-5 considers the influence of longitudinal reinforcement
ratio as well as shear to moment ratio (Vu d/Mu ). Thus, it may
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures (
Fig. 4. Distribution of parameters of reinforced concrete beams in shear database.
provide slightly better predictions on shear strength than the
Eq. 11-3 in general, which, however, requires more complicated
calculation process to get Vu d/Mu values.
Zsutty’s equation is quite simple and includes considerations
on concrete strength, reinforcement ratio, and shear span
to depth ratio (a/d). The accuracy of Zsutty’s equation is
relatively better than ACI approaches as will be described
afterwards, but it does not account the size effect. Compared to
the ACI approaches and Zsutty’s equation, Okamura’s equation
includes the influences of the five important parameters
mentioned above, which may lead to provide better estimations
on shear strength than those approaches.
EC2 has quite similar format to Zsutty’s equation, but
it considers size effect instead of shear span to depth ratio
(a/d), and also includes the influence of axial force. JSCE
uses an empirical equation for concrete contribution on shear
strength, and it takes into account the effect of concrete
strength, reinforcement ratio, size effect, and moment including
axial stresses. The AASHTO LRFD approach is based on
the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) [31]. This
method provides an integrated procedure for the shear design
of structural concrete members by accounting for the influence
of all actions on a section, including prestressing, axial
loading, and flexure. To utilize this approach, the longitudinal
strain (εx ) should be calculated by considering all sectional
forces including prestressing force and stiffness of longitudinal
reinforcement, and then, either a crack spacing or shear
intensity factor need to be obtained. Using these two values,
the coefficient, β, is obtained from a table and utilized to find
the concrete contribution to shear resistance, Vc , as well as the
angle of the diagonal compression field, θ.
3. Database of shear test results
Despite a large number of researches on shear behavior
of structural concrete members, researchers have been able to
access only a small portion of existing shear test data. In order
to provide the community with a resource for research on shear,
a comprehensive database of shear test results was established
(Reineck et al. [1], Kim [2]).
The database included the shear test results of 398
reinforced concrete (RC) beams. Most of them were rectangular
beams and simply supported under concentrated loads. The
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
) –
distribution of influencing parameters of these beams is shown
in Fig. 4. More than half of them had a concrete strength greater
than 30 MPa, and only 121 of them were for beams with a depth
greater than 300 mm. Many of the test beams were heavily
reinforced against flexure to avoid flexural failure, and only
58 beams contained less than 1% longitudinal reinforcement.
It also should be emphasized that all beams had shear span to
depth ratio (a/d) greater than 2.4. More than 85% of the test
beams had a range of 200–300 mm web width, but several wide
beams were as wide as 1000 mm. Although the characteristics
of some members in the database may not be close to the
structural beams in real construction fields, it is shown that the
distribution of influencing parameters of these beams is ranged
very wide, which makes the use of this database valuable.
4. Knowledge-based shear modeling using artificial neural
network
One of the greatest advances in modern engineering is
the use of computers to solve problems. Structural engineers
heavily rely on computer software for structural analysis. They
also increasingly computerize design processes, mainly to
improve the efficiency by replacing repetitive iterations with
automated procedures. This approach of using a computer
focuses on the development of a set of well-defined instructions,
which is often represented using a flowchart. On the other hand,
there is a greater potential in using a computer if a database
that represents the domain knowledge is incorporated into the
computerized procedure. The database may enable us to do
things that are not possible without the information contained
in it.
Modern computational capability enables us to use
computational knowledge representation such as artificial
neural networks (ANN) in combination with a database that
contains important domain knowledge. The main benefit
of using an ANN-based approach is that the network, or
the knowledge of complex shear behavior, is constructed
directly from experimental database. Unlike conventional shear
equations, the ANN shear model is easily improved whenever
additional experimental data becomes available, and it typically
is more accurate than simple design equations. In addition, we
can describe virtually any input–output relationship using the
ANN, such as the conservative prediction model proposed in
this paper.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures (
Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of artificial neurons.
Fig. 6. Multi-layer neural network model used in this paper for the prediction
of the shear strength.
The downside of the ANN-based approach is that the
network is not as transparent as conventional design equations.
The network is typically composed of many small units, and
therefore hand-calculation of shear capacity using the ANN
will be too tedious. However, this does not limit computerized
calculation of shear. In fact, the most likely application of ANN
shear model is with computer software.
The fundamental idea of the ANN approach is to describe a
complex input–output relationship using combinations of many
small units. Inspired by neuroscience, simplified structure of
biological neurons is used in designing artificial neurons. Fig. 5
schematically shows artificial neurons. Outputs from other units
are transmitted along incoming connections and a weighted
sum is calculated. The weight sum is passed through a nonlinear
function called the sigmoid function.
! strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. An
X ANN model is defined by the connection weights wi j explained
Oi = g wi j ξ j (1)
j
where ξ j is output from other units, Oi is output of the current
unit, wi j is connection weight, g is sigmoid function. Typical
choice for the sigmoid function is hyperbolic tangent function
(tanh), which is also used in this study.
Multi-layer feed-forward networks, which proved to be the
most useful neural network type for the modeling of concrete
shear behavior, are composed of layers of artificial neurons.
Fig. 6 shows the multi-layer network used in this paper. The
network consists of an input layer, two hidden layers, and an
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
) – 5
output layer. Each layer has sets of neurons. Signals travel from
the input layer to the output layer. Multi-layer feed-forward
networks have the capability of constructing a statistical model
of the given data sets. Training is a procedure whereby the
connection weights of the networks are determined using given
input and output sets (training sets).
When determining the connection weights, back-propagation
algorithm is commonly used. Error of a training set is expressed
as
1X
E(w) = [ζi − Oi ]2 (2)
2 i
where i is output node index, ζ is target pattern, O is neural
networks output. Error is reduced by updating the weights using
the gradient descent method:
∂E
∆wi j = −η (3)
∂wi j
where η is learning rate. In back-propagation algorithm, first
an input pattern is passed through the neural network, and the
output error is back propagated and the connection weights are
updated. The details of the back-propagation algorithm can be
found in Hertz et al. [32] and Bishop [33].
In this paper, one of the faster converging algorithms,
RPROP (resilient propagation), is used for the training.
RPROP improves the standard back-propagation algorithm by
considering local gradient information. Rather than using single
learning rate for all connections, each weight connection has
individual ∆i j for adjusting weights.
∆wi j = −∆i j if ∂ E/∂wi j > 0
∆wi j = +∆i j if ∂ E/∂wi j < 0 (4)
∆i j is changed at the end of each iteration so that each
connection weight converges quickly to the function minimum.
Details of the RPROP algorithm can be found in Riedmiller and
Braun [34].
5. Prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without
shear reinforcement using artificial neural network
5.1. Training of the ANN shear model
Fig. 7 shows a flowchart for the prediction of the shear
in Eq. (1)). The ANN model for concrete shear has fixed
number of input nodes and output nodes (Fig. 6). Inputs of
the ANN are web width (bw ), effective depth (d), shear span
to depth ratio (or moment-to-shear ratio, M/V d), concrete
compressive strength ( f c0 ), tensile strength of reinforcing steel
( f y ), and longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρ). Each input for
the ANN is divided by a scalar that is slightly larger than the
largest component in the database, so that a normalized input
is smaller than 1.0. Output of the ANN is also normalized.
Shape of the sigmoid function (tanh) becomes flat as an output
moves toward 1.0, and therefore convergence can be very slow.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures ( ) –

Fig. 8. Change of maximum error for ANN 6–6–7–1.

architecture 6–6–7–1 because it shows the smallest maximum

error for the training sets. One thing to note in this figure is
the magnitude of the errors. In ANN training, typically error
of testing sets is higher than error of training sets. In this
study the magnitude is reversed, because randomly selected
48 testing data have less scatter. However, the overall trend of
the error – error of training sets continues to decrease while
Fig. 7. Flowchart of the prediction of the shear strength of reinforced concrete that of testing sets decreases and then increases – is typical of
beams. ANN training.
To improve the convergence, normalization is done so that the To evaluate the performance of the ANN, the following
largest output is smaller than 0.9. criteria are employed.
Depending on the number of the hidden layers and the N
hidden nodes, there can be various architectures. In this study, 1 X
average error = (V test − ViANN )2 (5)
ANN with 1 hidden layer and 2 hidden layers are investigated, N i=1 i
which are the most common choices for multi-layer neural
maximum error = Max(Vitest − ViANN )2 (6)
networks. The number of nodes for each layer is varied from 3
to 12. Therefore, 10 different ANNs are created and evaluated where i is data set index, Vitest is shear strength from test
for the 1 hidden layer model, and 100 different ANNs are data, ViANN is shear strength from ANN prediction. All shear
created and evaluated for the 2 hidden layer model. To identify strengths are normalized with respect to the largest shear
ANN architecture, ANN N–N–N–N notation is used. For strength in the database. The number of the data sets N is 350
example, an ANN model with 1 hidden layer of 5 hidden nodes for the calculation of error in training sets, 48 for testing sets,
is noted as ANN 6–5–1, and an ANN model with 2 hidden and 398 for all data sets.
layers of 6 hidden nodes each is noted as ANN 6–6–6–1. Although the above error measures are useful in determining
One thing to note in Fig. 7 is the separation of training the good ANN model, they alone are not sufficient. An ANN
sets and testing sets. If a network is developed without testing model that has small average error will provide good prediction
sets, it may overfit the training data. Such a network shows for most of the data sets, but may show significant error for
good approximation only for the training cases, and poor small number of the data sets. Maximum error compensates this
performance for novel cases that are not similar to the training problem but not completely, because they cannot distinguish
cases. General practice is to reserve about 10% of total data non-conservative and conservative side. Also, the maximum
sets for testing cases. In this paper, 48 data sets are randomly error represents the largest error of only one data, not a group of
selected as testing cases, and then the remaining 350 data data. The following additional measures are defined and utilized
sets are used as training cases. Each network is trained only to evaluate the performance of various models.
for the training cases for 100,000 iterations, while saving
the network architecture every 1,000 iterations. Networks at R = V experiment /V ANN (7)
various iterations are evaluated for the testing cases, and the N
ANN that shows the minimum error is chosen for the given 1 X
mean = Ri (8)
architecture. N i=1
Fig. 8 shows example selection of iteration number for ANN sP
6–6–7–1. Although the maximum error for the training sets R 2 − N (mean)2
stdev = (9)
continues to decrease, ANN at iteration 40,000 is chosen for the N −1
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures ( ) – 7

other study (Seleemah [9]) because of the difference in data

normalization scheme. The architecture of ANN may change
as further experimental data sets become available. Any best
architecture of the previous studies should serve as a guideline,
not as the definite solution.
It should be also emphasized that almost all procedures
in this section either have been automated or can easily
be automated. When implemented in computer software as
an integrated system, almost no human interference will be
required.

6. Comparison of the ANN shear model with conventional

design equations
Fig. 9. Error measures of the best ANN shear models (for all data sets).
The shear strengths calculated by the empirical equations
and design code approaches introduced in Table 1 are compared
Table 2
Error measures of various predictions to the 398 test results in the database presented in Section 3,
and the evaluation results of these approaches are summarized
Mean Stdev Cov Min Max
in Table 2. It should be mentioned that factors in design code
ACI 11-3 1.41 0.48 0.34 0.37 3.22 provisions such as load factors, strength reduction factors,
ACI 11-5 1.25 0.36 0.29 0.37 2.59 material strength reduction factors, or similarly functioning
Zsutty’s equation 1.07 0.25 0.24 0.43 2.07
factors are not considered in this evaluation such that the
Okamura’s equation 1.16 0.23 0.20 0.66 2.45
EC2 1.65 0.42 0.25 0.82 3.92 effect of conservatism from these factors are removed and so
JSCE 1.29 0.28 0.22 0.70 2.76 that a more through evaluation of code approaches based on
AASHTO LRFD 1.35 0.29 0.21 0.80 2.96 their design philosophy can be obtained. The limit on concrete
ANN (all data) 1.00 0.12 0.12 0.57 1.61 compressive strength in these code provisions is not applied in
ANN (training) 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.57 1.61
this evaluation either.
ANN (testing) 0.99 0.16 0.16 0.64 1.50
ANN conservative (all data) 1.09 0.14 0.13 0.80 1.77 Table 2 provides the mean, standard deviation (stdev),
ANN conservative (training) 1.09 0.14 0.13 0.80 1.77 and coefficient of variation (cov) for the strength ratio
ANN conservative (testing) 1.10 0.18 0.16 0.81 1.70 (Vtest /Vn,code ) for the eight approaches including ANN. The
mean can be used as a rough measure of conservative or
max = Max(Ri ) (10) unconservative bias of the approaches on the safety, and the cov
can be used as an indication of accuracy.
min = Min(Ri ) (11)
Because Eq. 11-3 in ACI only considers the influence of
concrete strength for concrete contribution and use the fixed 45
5.2. Selection of the best ANN model degree truss model for stirrup contribution, a large scatter of the
strength ratios is expected. For 398 RC test results, ACI 318-02
In multi-layer neural networks, typically average error (Eq. 11-3) gives a mean of 1.41 and cov of 0.34. Especially,
(Eq. (5)) is monitored for testing sets to determine the best it tends to overestimate the shear strengths as longitudinal
converged model. The logic behind is that it is important to reinforcement ratio decreases, but it provides very conservative
have a model that represents all data sets reasonably well. In this estimations for heavily reinforced members against flexure as
study, mean (Eq. (8)) for virtually all networks was close to 1.0 shown in Fig. 10(a). It also gives unconservative results on
indicating that most data sets are reasonably well-represented the shear strength of members having large depths. Compared
no matter which architecture is chosen. On the other hand, max to the Eq. 11-3 in ACI 318-02, the Eq. 11-5 in ACI 318-02
and min (Eqs. (10) and (11)) showed notable scatter. Max and consider the influence of longitudinal reinforcement ratio and
min criteria are especially important for the prediction of shear shear to moment ratio (Vu d/Mu ), and thus it provides slightly
strength, and therefore maximum error (Eq. (6)) is monitored better predictions on shear strength with a mean of 1.25 and
to determine the best ANN architecture. cov of 0.29. However, it also tends to provide unconservative
The five best ANNs that show the smallest maximum error estimation for the lightly reinforced members against flexure.
(Eq. (6)) for the testing sets are selected as the candidates for (See Fig. 10(b).)
our ANN shear model. Error measures of the five ANNs are Zsutty’s equation is quite simple and its accuracy is
shown in Fig. 9. Selection of those five ANNs is based on the relatively better than ACI approaches showing with a mean of
error of the testing sets, and therefore they are likely to be robust 1.07 and cov of 0.24. However, it does not account the size
for the novel data sets that are not included in this study. Among effect, and consequently, it overestimates the shear strength
these, ANN 6–11–7–1 is chosen as our shear model. Its error of the members having large depth as shown in Fig. 10(c).
measures are shown in Table 2. It is important to note that the Okamura’s equation provides a good performance with a mean
best ANN architecture of this study is different from that of of 1.16 and cov of 0.20 without severe bias trends for most
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures ( ) –

(a) ACI318-02 Eq. 11-3.

(b) ACI318-02 Eq. 11-5. (c) Zsutty’s equation.

(d) Okamarua’s equation. (e) EC2.

(f) JSCE. (g) AASHTO LRFD.

Fig. 10. Strength ratios of different approaches.

range of parameters compared to other approaches, which The EC2 tends to be conservative in its overall performance
means that it relatively well considers the influences of the five providing a mean of 1.65 and cov of 0.25. Fig. 10(e) indicates
important parameters previously mentioned. (See Fig. 10(d).) that members with small depths show very conservative results,
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures (
(a) Strength ratio vs. concrete compressive strength.
(c) Strength ratio vs. longitudinal reinforcement ratio.
Fig. 11. Strength ratios of ANN approach.
while members with larger depths show less conservative
results. However, it should be again emphasized that even the
strength ratios (Vtest /Vn,EC2 ) for the large depth members are
still conservative. Note that the size√effect is considered and the
shear strength is proportional to 1/ d in EC2.
JSCE gives a mean of 1.29 and cov of 0.22, which
is reasonably good performance when considering the
relative simplicity of JSCE approach. Although the empirical
equation for concrete contribution on shear strength is quite
simple, JSCE includes the effect of important parameters
aforementioned. It is interesting that the shear strength in JSCE
is proportional to 1/d 1/4 . Fig. 10(f) shows the strength ratios
plotted versus member depth (d).
AASHTO LRFD provides quite good estimation of shear
strength showing a mean value of 1.35 and cov of 0.213.
AASHTO LRFD considers the size effect with crack spacing
parameter, sxe , which relates the member depth (or distance
between longitudinal web reinforcement) to the crack width and
interface shear transfer mechanism. The effect of the amount of
longitudinal reinforcement is also reflected in the longitudinal
strain with a combination of sectional forces. It is considered
that this approach accounts reasonably well for the influence of
the longitudinal reinforcement ratio, member depth as well as
other main parameters. (See Fig. 10(g).)
In ANN approach, most of the influencing parameters,
i.e., bw , d, a/d or (M/V d), f c0 , f y , and ρl , were used for
input values and trained to provide a best fit to test results.
Consequently, ANN approach provides the best performance
of shear strengths with a mean of 1.00 and cov of 0.12.
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
) – 9
(b) Strength ratio vs. effective depth.
(d) Strength ratio vs. shear span to depth ratio.
Fig. 11(a)–(d) shows the strength ratio by ANN approach versus
concrete strength, depth, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and
shear span to depth ratio, respectively. It is shown that there is
no biased trend in strength ratio for these parameters, which are
easily found in other approaches. Despite the great accuracy of
ANN approach, however, some data points in Fig. 11 indicate
that unconservative estimation of shear strength is still possible.
For this reason, this ANN approach has been modified to
remove unconservative cases as introduced in the next section.
7. Conservative design using ANN-generated correction
factors
Due to the uncertainty of concrete shear behavior,
conservative prediction may be preferred than more accurate
but less-conservative prediction. In conventional design, it
would not be, in general, possible to find out how non-
conservative a section is, because corresponding experimental
data is usually not available. On the other hand, the information
contained in the shear database and the capability of ANN
to map any input–output relationship enables us to obtain
correction factors for non-conservative cases.
In non-conservative cases, R = V experiment /V ANN < 1.0,
or the shear prediction by ANN is larger than the actual shear
in the experiment. If the ANN shear prediction is multiplied by
R, it is possible to effectively reduce the magnitude of ANN
prediction and thereby to correct the error of non-conservative
prediction. In order to calculate the correction factor for any
case (that is not included in the shear database), another ANN
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures (
(a) Strength ratio vs. concrete compressive strength.
(c) Strength ratio vs. longitudinal reinforcement ratio.
Fig. 12. Strength ratios of conservative ANN approach.
model can be developed. Input of the ANN model is the same
as the previous ANN, but the output is the factor R. The
previous ANN had 198 non-conservative predictions. 150 sets
were randomly selected as the training sets, and the remaining
48 sets were chosen as the testing sets. Similar to the training
of the previous ANN, various architectures are trained to find
out the optimal ANN that shows the smallest maximum error
for the testing sets. ANN 6–4–7–1 is chosen as the best model
for estimating the correction factors.
Table 2 shows error measures of conservative prediction of
ANN (shear prediction of ANN multiplied by correction factor
of the new ANN). The conservative ANN approach provides a
mean of 1.10 and cov of 0.13, which means that it gives about
10% conservative than the previous ANN approach but keeping
almost similar accuracy. In fact, about 90% of the strength
ratios are in a range of 0.85–1.3, and the minimum strength
ratio became 0.8. Compared to the minimum value of strength
ratio of 0.57 using the previous ANN approach, the minimum
strength ratio of 0.8 is a great improvement in its conservatism.
It should be also noted that only 1% of the strength ratios are
in the range of 0.8–0.85 and about 9% of data are distributed
in a range of 1.3–1.77. The conservatism of the ANN approach
modified with correction factors can be confirmed in Fig. 12.
Compared to the minimum strength ratios by other
approaches, these values are ranged from as low as 0.37 to
0.82 in other approaches. While the minimum strength ratios
for JSCE, LRFD, and EC2 approaches are adequate to provide
a reasonable margin of safety, those for ACI318-02 Eq. 11-3,
11-5, Zsutty’s equation, and Okamura’s equation indicate that
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
) –
(b) Strength ratio vs. effective depth.
(d) Strength ratio vs. shear span to depth ratio.
they may not provide necessary margin of safety. Thus, the
conservative ANN approach is considered to provide the best
accuracy on shear strength with a reasonable margin of safety.
8. Summary and conclusion
This paper has presented a knowledge-based utilization of
the concrete shear database. To find out systematically the best
representation of the concrete shear behavior, ANN, the shear
database, and the error measures have been employed. Two
ANN models are presented as examples. Shear prediction by
the first model has the least standard deviation, least maximum
and minimum deviation. The second model finds out correction
terms for conservative predictions, using data sets that show
non-conservative predictions.
It is important to note that the first model, which is similar to
the models reported in other literature, can give us significantly
non-conservative prediction. Although the first model overall
has the least standard deviation, it is less conservative than some
design equations. When conservative prediction is preferred,
the second model gives us satisfactory prediction. It is as
conservative as the most conservative design equations, but not
as overly conservative as them.
The procedures presented in this paper either have been
automated or can easily be automated in a computer. Although
the current ANN models outperform all existing design
equations, whenever new experimental data sets are added to
the database, the presented shear prediction models can be
updated with minimum effort for further improvement.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Jung, K.S. Kim / Engineering Structures (
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by the 2006 Research Foundation
Program of the University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea.
References
[1] Reineck KH, Kuchma DA, Kim KS, Marx S. Shear database for
reinforced concrete members without shear reinforcement. ACI Structural
Journal 2003;100:240–9.
[2] Kim KS. Shear behavior of reinforced concrete beams and prestressed
concrete beams. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2004.
[3] Goh ATC. Prediction of ultimate shear strength of deep beams using
neural networks. ACI Structural Journal 1995;92:28–32.
[4] Sanad A, Saka MP. Prediction of ultimate shear strength of reinforced-
concrete deep beams using neural networks. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2001;127:818–28.
[5] Cladera A, Mari AR. Shear design procedure for reinforced normal and
high-strength concrete beams using artificial neural networks. Part I:
Beams without stirrups. Engineering Structures 2004;26:917–26.
[6] Cladera A, Mari AR. Shear design procedure for reinforced normal and
high-strength concrete beams using artificial neural networks. Part II:
Beams with stirrups. Engineering Structures 2004;26:927–36.
[7] Mansour MY, Dicleli M, Lee JY, Zhang J. Predicting the shear strength
of reinforced concrete beams using artificial neural networks. Engineering
Structures 2004;26:781–99.
[8] Oreta AWC. Simulating size effect on shear strength of RC beams without
stirrups using neural networks. Engineering Structures 2004;26:681–91.
[9] Seleemah AA. A neural network model for predicting maximum shear
capacity of concrete beams without transverse reinforcement. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 2005;32:644–57.
[10] Kim KS, Jung S, Han SE. Prediction of shear strength using
artificial neural networks for reinforced concrete members without shear
reinforcement. Journal of the Computational Structural Engineering
Institute of Korea 2005;18:201–11 [in Korean].
[11] El-Chabib H, Nehdi M, Said A. Predicting shear capacity of NSC
and HSC slender beams without stirrups using artificial intelligence.
Computers and Concrete 2005;2:79–96.
[12] El-Chabib H, Nehdi M, Said A. Predicting the effect of stirrups on shear
strength of reinforced normal-strength concrete (NSC) and high-strength
concrete (HSC) slender beams using artificial intelligence. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 2006;33:933–44.
[13] Nehdi M, El-Chabib H, Said A. Evaluation of shear capacity of
FRP reinforced concrete beams using artificial neural networks. Smart
Structures and Systems 2006;2:81–100.
[14] Jung S, Ghaboussi J, Marulanda C. Field calibration of time-dependent
behavior in segmental bridges using self-learning simulation. Engineering
Structures 2007;29:2692–700.
Please cite this article in press as: Jung S, Kim KS. Knowledge-based prediction of shear strength of concrete beams without shear reinforcement. Engineering
Structures (2007), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.10.008
) – 11
[15] Inel M. Modeling ultimate deformation capacity of RC columns using
artificial neural networks. Engineering Structures 2007;29:329–35.
[16] Pendharkar U, Chaudhary S, Nagpal AK. Neural network for bending
moment in continuous composite beams considering cracking and time
effects in concrete. Engineering Structures 2007;29:2069–79.
[17] ASCE-ACI Committee 426. The shear strength of reinforced concrete
members. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 1973;99:1091–187.
[18] ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on Shear and Torsion. Recent approaches
to shear design of structural concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering
1998;124:1375–417.
[19] Kani GNJ. How safe are our large reinforced concrete beams. ACI
Journal, Proceedings 1967;64:128–41.
[20] Shioya T, Iguro M, Nojiri Y, Akiyama H, Okada T. Shear strength of large
reinforced concrete beams, fracture mechanics: Application to concrete.
ACI SP-118. Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 1989.
[21] Bazant ZP, Kim JK. Size effect in shear failure of longitudinally
reinforced beams. ACI Structural Journal 1989;81:456–68.
[22] Collins MP, Kuchma DA. Advances in understanding shear performance
of concrete structures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials
1998;1:1–10.
[23] Reineck KH. Mechanical model for the behaviour of reinforced concrete
members in shear. Ph.D. thesis. University of Stuttgart; 1990.
[24] Reineck KH. Modelling of members with transverse reinforcement. In:
IABSE colloquium on structural concrete: IABSE rep. 1991. 62 p.
481–88.
[25] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318 R-02). Farmington Hills:
American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[26] Zsutty TC. Shear strength prediction for separate categories of simple
beams tests. ACI Journal 1971;68:138–43.
[27] Okamura H, Higai T. Proposed design equation for shear strength of RC
beams without web reinforcement. Proceeding of Japan Society of Civil
Engineering 1980;300:131–41.
[28] Commission of the European Communities. Eurocode No. 2: Design of
concrete structures—part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. prEN
1992-1-1 draft, July, 2002.
[29] Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Specification for design and
construction of concrete structures: Design. JSCE Standard, Part 1, Tokyo;
1986.
[30] AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications. 2nd ed. Washington (DC):
AASHTO; 2003.
[31] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression field theory for
reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 1986;83:219–31.
[32] Hertz JA, Krogh A, Palmer RG. Introduction to the theory of neural
computation. Perseus Publishing; 1991.
[33] Bishop CM. Neural networks for pattern recognition. New York: Oxford
University Press; 1995.
[34] Riedmiller M, Braun H. A direct adaptive method for faster
backpropagation learning: The RPROP algorithm. In: 1993 IEEE
international conference on neural networks. IEEE; 1993. p. 586–91.