Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Received: 11 June 2019 / Accepted: 2 September 2019 / Published online: 9 September 2019
© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2019
Abstract
The use of FRP composites as external confinement has recently become a very important system to consider when rein-
forcing concrete and steel structures. Many constitutive models have been proposed to design such structures. However,
the emergence of artificial neural network offers a better alternative with a strong prediction capability. In this research, an
artificial neural network (ANN) based model is used to estimate the compressive strength, maximum stresses and strains of
AFRP strengthened circular hollow section steel tubes under axial compression. A database of 129 cases of finite element
model (FEM) was analyzed using ANSYS Workbench 19.0 and ACP Tool. The FEM was validated with a previously done
experimental test. Different geometric criteria have been taken into account to better address the complexity of the problem.
Using this FEM database, ANNs have been trained using two approaches. The first approach was using the neural network
toolbox in MATLAB. The second approach was using a built-in neural network tool in ANSYS Workbench. The successfully
trained ANN is further used to predict the new cases, as an alternative to FE Analysis. Following, a parametric study and a
sensitivity analysis were also carried out to investigate the effect of different parameters on the load capacity. The predicted
results of the ANN models show a good correlation with the experimental and FEM results. Moreover, comparative analysis
of performance result reveals that the ANSYS-ANN had better accuracy in terms of mean squared error and regression value
(R2) compared to MATLAB-ANN. The ANN is quite an efficient tool in determining the strength of the AFRP strengthening
steel tubes. Such a technique can be used to reduce computation time and labor.
Graphic Abstract
Keywords AFRP · Compressive strength · Artificial neural network (ANN) · Finite element method (FEM) · ANSYS ·
MATLAB
* Abderrahim Djerrad
djerradabderrahim@hit.edu.cn
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol:.(1234567890)
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 157
1 Introduction
13
158 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
Table 1 Material properties of steel tubes In the present study, the Artificial Neural Network
Properties Young Yield Yield Ultimate Poisson approach was employed to predict the ultimate compressive
modulus strength strain strength ratio strength, maximum equivalent Von Mises stress and strain of
Es (GPa) Fy (MPa) εy (µε) Fs (MPa) (υ) AFRP strengthening steel tubes using different geometrical
parameters. For this purpose, the experimental and numeri-
Steel 208 272 1991 410 0.3
cal study carried out by (Djerrad et al. 2019) was taken into
consideration. Finite element analysis is carried out using
ANSYS Workbench 19.0 and ACP Tool. The generated data
2018; Tenza-Abril et al. 2018; Getahun et al. 2018), strength
from FEA analysis is used for training and testing the Arti-
and fatigue damage of steel material (Jimenez-Martinez and
ficial Neural Network models. The ANN models are devel-
Alfaro-Ponce 2019; Hedayat et al. 2019) and strength of FRP
oped using MATLAB neural network tools and ANSYS
confined concrete columns (Naderpour et al. 2019; Haji et al.
built-in neural network. The successfully trained ANNs are
2019). However, it was rarely used to predict the strength of
then used for the analysis of new cases, which are, moreover,
steel columns reinforced with FRP.
Properties Tensile Tensile In-plane Shear Out-of-plane Tensile Tensile Compressive Compressive
Modulus Modulus modulus Shear modu- strength strength strength strength
E1 (GPa) E2, E3 (GPa) G12, G13 (GPa) lus T1 (MPa) T2 (MPa) C1 (MPa) C2 (MPa)
G23 (GPa)
Table 3 comparison between Specimen Steel thickness AFRP thickness tf Tube height Ultimate load P Load ratio
(Djerrad et al. 2019) ts (mm) (mm)/fiber orientation L (mm) (KN)
experimental results and present (ϑ)
FE analysis PEXP PFEA PEXP/PFEA
80 80 80
EXP S1-900-A1 (Djerrad et al) EXP S1-900-A2 (Djerrad et al) EXP S1-900-A3 (Djerrad et al)
70 70 70
FEA S1-900-A1 FEA S1-900-A2 (FEA) FEA S1-900-A3
60 60 60
50 50 50
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
Load [kN]
40 40 40
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Axial shortening [mm] Axial shortening [mm] Axial shortening [mm]
Fig. 3 Comparison of load–displacement curves between actual FEA and Experiment of (Djerrad et al. 2019)
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 159
Fig. 4 Comparison of specimen
failure modes between FEA and
Experiment with AFRP dam-
age: 0 = No-damage, 0.5 = Par-
tially damaged, 1 = Fully
damaged
validated using ANSYS Workbench. Also, we investigate error margin. A mesh size of 3 mm × 3 mm (length–width)
the capability of the developed ANN model in predicting was adopted for all models as it offers better convergence
the load-carrying capacity by conducting some parametric and more accurate results with reasonable processing time.
studies. The boundary conditions are provided in the model accord-
The comparison of the results of these new cases obtained ing to the experimental setup and assumed to be simply sup-
by the ANSYS-ANN and MATLAB-ANN model with ported. Both ends of the tube are modeled as rigid part. The
FEA results showed that both approaches had an excellent bottom end of the tube is restrained from displacements in
capability to predict the strength of the AFRP strengthen- x, y, and z-directions and rotation in z-directions ( UX, UY,
ing steel tubes. The selected ANSYS-ANN model predicts UZ, RZ = 0), while the top end of the tube the displacement
results with high precision than MATLAB-ANN. This study is restrained in x, y directions and rotations along z-direction
indicated that the artificial neural network combined with (UX, UY, RZ = 0). The load is applied at the top end of the
FEA software is a powerful and reliable tool for predicting model as a rigid displacement of 10 cm increasing linearly in
results also an alternative for expensive and time-consuming the negative z-direction, sufficiently to reach the peak load.
experimental programs. The corresponding load versus displacement is monitored
using a force reaction probe. From the previous research
(Djerrad et al. 2019) has concluded that for specimens with a
2 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis relatively high slenderness ratio, the debonding phenomenon
can be ignored to avoid complex and time-consuming simu-
To ensure the reliability of the FEA database, the developed lation. Since the FE model can still accurately simulate load
FE model and simulation process was adopted from the find- capacity, maximum strain, and stress. So, a “Perfect Bond”
ings of the study previously conducted by (Djerrad et al. was assumed between the steel and FRP composite with any
2019). It consists of a 3D non-linear FE simulation of circu- sliding or separation phenomena. The adopted model, mesh
lar hollow section (CHS) steel tube retrofitted with aramid and boundary conditions are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
fiber reinforced polymers (AFRP) modeled using ANSYS
Workbench 19 and ANSYS Composite Prep/Post tool. The
model takes into account both material and geometric non- 3 Material Properties
linearities. The layered structure solid element SOLID185
as described by ANSYS Mechanical User’s Guide: PDF The material properties used in the present FE model are
Documentation for Release 17.2 (2016) is suitable to model based on the experimental study (Djerrad et al. 2019). The
layered thin-thick shells or solids. Therefore, it is adopted steel model was considered to be homogeneous and isotropic
in this FE model to investigate the behavior of thin-walled with material nonlinearity. The young modulus (ES), poison
steel tube and retrofitting materials involving AFRP. The ratio (υ) and yield strength (FY) were used to model the lin-
SOLID185 element is defined by eight nodes having three ear elastic proprieties using “ISOTROPIC ELASTIC” option
degrees-of-freedom at each node: three translations in the in ANSYS. The nonlinear behavior was modeled by specify-
directions x, y, and z. An initial deformation approximating ing the stress–strain curve defined by the “MULTILINEAR
the Eigenvalue-buckling analysis was performed into the FE ISOTROPIC” option.
model to predict the final deformation shape of the model. The AFRP composite was made with VF = 60% fibers
A sensitive analysis was performed to select the appropri- and VM = 40% epoxy matrix. The unidirectional aramid fiber
ate mesh size, able to predict all results within a tolerable used in this study is commercially available as DuPont™
13
160 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
Fig. 5 Structure of a single BP
artificial neuron (hidden neuron)
and mathematical representation
Kevlar® 49 Aramid Fiber. Epoxy resin E-51 based on two- curves, which reasonably proves the accuracy of the simula-
component A: solvent-free epoxy resin and B: hardener is tion. Also, the similarities of overall failure modes, AFRP
used as matrix and adhesive. In addition to the proprieties of failure location and peak-load results between the experi-
materials provided by the manufacturers, tests were carried mental and the FE models. The mean ratio and coefficient
out to have more precise results. The AFRP composites are of variance (COV) of ultimate load are 0.964 and 0.011,
considered as an orthotropic and elastic material modeled by respectively. This suggests that the FE modeling of AFRP
ACP Prep-Post and assumed to behave linearly until failure. strengthening steel tubes using the proper parameters are
“ORTHOTROPIC ELASTICITY” and “ORTHOTROPIC validated and there remains a good agreement to use in
STRESS AND STRAIN” options are employed to model upcoming analysis to predict the failure modes and carry-
the elastic behavior of the AFRP using the young modulus ing load capacity.
(E), Shear modulus (G) and poison ratio (υ) of the lateral
direction denoted as (1) and transversal direction denoted
as (2 and 3). “HASHIN DAMAGE CRITERION” is used 5 Artificial Neural Network Theory
to simulate the damage initiation and damage progression
behavior of AFRP with material propriety degradation set Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are computing models
to 0.5. Thus, once the AFRP reach the damage limit the mainly used in machine learning to solve mathematical prob-
stiffness is reduced by 50%. All the measured mechanical lems, as the name suggests they are modeled loosely after
properties of the involved materials: steel and AFRP used biological neural systems (human brain). These networks
for this analysis are presented in Tables 1 and 2. consist of a large number of artificial neurons (basic unit of a
neural network) interconnected to each other to solve a spe-
cific task. Each of the artificial neurons consists of weights,
4 Validation of the Simulation Process bias and the activation function. The artificial neurons can
achieve better performances than the conventional models
The numerical analysis of AFRP strengthened (CHS) steel by calculating specific mathematical functions. More details
tube is developed and validated with experimental tests to of the functioning of ANN can be found in the following
ensure the reliability and acceptability of the FEM and the documents (Zurada 1992).
analysis process. More details of the experimental setup and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) artificial neural network
process can be found in (Djerrad et al. 2019). was adopted in this study. A supervised multilayer feedfor-
The comparison between the results obtained from the ward neural network trained with the standard backpropa-
present FE analysis and the experiment are given in Table 3 gation learning algorithm based on the Levenberg–Mar-
as well as the load versus axial shortening curves in Fig. 3 quardt algorithm (Beale and Demuth 2019). Such networks
and failure modes in Fig. 4. are trained by progressively improving the performance to
Considering the load versus axial shortening curves, we achieve a specific task. The ANN consisting of one input
can see that the FEA curves follow the path experimental layer, one hidden layer, and an output layer. The number of
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 161
input and output neurons depends on the problem. The num- connections weight, the weighted sum of all connected
ber of hidden neurons is determined by an error sensitivity inputs neurons and the neurons bias value is put into a
test. Each MLP layers are fully connected such that neurons so-called activation function (transfer function), which
between adjacent layers are fully connected in pairs, while mathematically transforms the value to a probability value
neurons of the same layer don’t share any connection. The (between 0 and 1) before it finally can be passed to the out-
main characteristic of the selected network is their ability to put layer. The same process is repeated again between the
solve problems with non-linear relationships between inputs hidden layer and the output layer to calculate the output
and the outputs with minimum error. prediction. This way the inputs are propagated through the
The network passes through two steps, the feed-forward whole network. The logistic sigmoid activation function is
step, and the backpropagation step. First, in the feed-for- given as Eq. 1 was employed in both hidden and output lay-
ward step, a hidden layer neuron takes the value of each of ers since it can result in a well-trained process. The structure
the connected inputs neurons and multiplies it with their
13
162 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
of an artificial neuron is shown in Fig. 5 and the mathemati- 6.1 Finite Element Test Database
cal model is shown as follows:
To create an efficient neural network, a sufficient amount of
1
f (sum) = (1) data is necessary for training, verifying and testing the devel-
1 + e−sum
oped ANN. For that, finite element analysis of 129 cases
is carried out on the axial compressive strength of AFRP
n
∑ strengthening circular hollow section (CHS) steel tube using
sum = Xi Wi + B (2)
i=1
ANSYS Workbench and ANSYS Composite Prep-Post tool.
Both, the FE model and simulation process employed in the
where f(sum) is an activation function; sum is the weighted validation test were adopted in this analysis, with the follow-
summation, Xi is the input of the neuron i, Wi is the connec- ing varying input parameters (design variables):
tion weight between two neurons and B is bias value.
Second, the backpropagation (BP) step is one of the 1. Thickness of the steel tube (ts) in mm.
multitude algorithms used to train the artificial neural net- 2. Thickness of the AFRP (tf) in mm.
work. The algorithm continuously backward propagates 3. Height of the steel tube (L) in mm.
the error and adjust each of the network weights and bias 4. Steel tube outer diameter (D).
values (output and hidden layer) towards the direction that
minimizes the error of the network output. So, that they The predicted output variables are:
cause the predicted output to be closer to the target output,
thereby the whole network error is reduced to a satisfac- 1. Ultimate load capacity (kN).
tory level. Many techniques can be used in backpropagation 2. Maximum Von Mises stress (mm).
algorithms such as (gradient descent, quasi-Newton, and 3. Maximum Von Mises strain (mm).
Levenberg–Marquardt).
The lower and upper bounds for the adopted parameters
are shown in Table 4. In ANSYS Workbench this can be
6 Methodology done by using Design of Experiments (DoE) algorithms as
shown in Fig. 18e in Appendix 1. DoE tools can be found in
Once the finite element model is validated with experimental ANSYS Workbench in the Design Explorer (DE) module.
tests, the same model and simulation process are further DOE is a technique used to efficiently determine a design
used to generate multiple design points (DP) using differ- space by generating a series of sampling points automatically
ent design variables. The DP dataset (associated inputs and or manually with a multiple set of parameters within a range,
outputs) divided into training, test and validation points are so as to reduce the number of FE runs needed to identify the
used to develop a number of ANNs. Next, we compare the influence of each input parameters on the predicted results.
ANN predicted results with FE simulation and experimen- ANSYS provides various DOE methods and algorithms for
tal results and select the network with better performances data point generation (Latin hypercube sampling, optimal
(lowest error). The selected ANN with acceptable accuracy space-filling, sparse grid, box-Behnken design, central com-
is also further used to perform other analyses, such as para- posite design, and custom point). Here, we set the generated
metric study and sensitivity analysis. point to custom points using manufacturable values, which
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 163
lets us add points directly into the design points table by 5x10 -5
manually entering the various parameters listed above. The ANN (MATLAB)
ANN (ANSYS)
DoE generated models are shown in Table 9 in Appendix 2. 4x10 -5
MSE (Strain)
3x10 -5
300 2000
ANN (MATLAB) ANN (MATLAB)
250 ANN (ANSYS) ANN (ANSYS)
1500
200
MSE (Stress)
MSE (Load)
150 1000
100
500
50
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Number of hidden neurons Number of hidden neurons
Fig. 8 Maximum squared error (MSE) of load capacity versus num- Fig. 10 Maximum squared error (MSE) of maximum stress versus
ber of hidden-layer neurons number of hidden-layer neurons
13
164 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
Table 5 Optimal ANN Output ANSYS ANN archi- MSE MATLAB ANN MSE
architectures (real input–output tecture architecture
values)
Load capacity (P) 4-6-3 36.73 4-16-3 42.36
Maximum strain (ε) 4-2-3 3.11 × 10−8 4-3-3 2.19 × 10−7
Maximum stress (σ) 4-10-3 167.24 4-17-3 192.12
300 650
FEA-ANSYS FEA-ANSYS
ANN-ANSYS 600 ANN-ANSYS
250
ANN-MATLAB ANN-MATLAB
150 450
400
100
350
50 300
0 250
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Design point Design point
Fig. 11 Comparison of load capacity between FEA and predicted Fig. 13 Comparison of maximum stress between FEA and predicted
results of the testing dataset using ANN-ANSYS (4-6-3) and ANN- results of the testing dataset using ANN-ANSYS (4-10-3) and ANN-
MATLAB (4-16-3) MATLAB (4-17-3)
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 165
Stress maximum
ANN output values.
Once we define the list of input parameters. The DoE
generate all the design points and then submits them to the
σ (MPa)
349.98
352.14
346.38
342.12
334.97
311.59
320.75
296.52
315.01
319.83
analysis system for a solution. The FEA results of the gener-
ated DP are used in the response surface module to train and
validate the neural network. In total 10 networks have been
Strain maxi-
mum × 10−3
ε (mm/mm)
357.40
349.03
338.24
347.36
323.94
316.91
314.42
314.14
322.54
312.27
Fig. 7. This process is done to guarantee the capability of the
ANN model to predicted results within tolerance.
Strain maxi-
mum × 10−3
ε (mm/mm)
1.8681
1.8532
1.7964
1.7278
1.6958
1.6710
1.6661
1.6642
1.6766
1.6857
7 Results and Discussion
ANSYS ANN
76.85
106.29
145.75
188.21
55.26
48.16
48.12
44.91
46.98
64.60
P (kN)
355.37
350.09
345.38
340.99
321.65
317.24
314.33
314.66
316.12
317.97
and 10. As can be seen, all the ANNs were correctly trained
and validated, the errors obtained were very small.
For load capacity results the lowest errors were 36.731,
Strain maxi-
mum × 10−3
ε (mm/mm)
set) for load, maximum stain and stress using the selected
D (mm)
ANNs. After that, the ANNs has been used to predict the
results of new cases data point (DP) which they were not
58
58
74
100
58
58
58
58
62
74
700
800
900
900
1200
1500
1600
1650
1700
1700
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
166 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
Table 7 The error between FEA DP Ratio PFEA/PANN (ANSYS) Ratio PFEA/PANN (MATLAB)
and ANN predicted results of
new design point Load Maximum strain Maximum stress Load Maximum strain Maximum stress
of the whole data which include the training dataset and the by varying the geometrical parameters. The ultimate load
new cases (139 cases) for load, maximum strain, and maxi- capacity (P) was the only output parameter considered in
mum stress were respectively 0.9924, 0.9454 and 0.9692. this parametric study. The ANSYS-ANN model (4-6-3)
For ANN-MATLAB the regression values were respectively is used to find out the influence of each input parameters
0.9799, 0.4521 and 0.9547. on the behavior of the structure. Design parameters and
In our further study, we will concentrate only on predict- their ranges considered for the parametric study are as fol-
ing the maximum load capacity. Therefore, ANSYS-ANN lows: tube height (630 mm < L < 1700 mm), steel thickness
4-6-3 has been selected as the one to be used. Since its offer- (1 mm < ts < 2 mm), AFRP thickness (0 mm < tf < 3 mm),
ings the best performance results for MSE, RMSE and R2 tube diameter (52 mm < D < 100 mm) and equivalent slen-
values among all networks. The regression values for train- derness ratio (20 < λ < 86). Material properties and fiber ori-
ing and validation of ANSYS-ANN 4-6-3 are summarized entation are kept the same for the whole analysis.
in Fig. 14. For any investigated parameter, the others are kept
Generating and analyzing all 139 models took a huge constant. The influence of that parameter is studied for
amount of time. On a medium-performance computer, an the ultimate load capacity using the numerical reference
average of 2 h was required for each model, with a total of model. The geometrical proprieties of the reference
about 300 h to analysis all models. Meanwhile, the time model are based on the long tube specimen of (Djer-
necessary for an ANN to predict the results with the accu- rad et al. 2019) (D = 58 mm, t s= 1 mm, L = 900 mm and
racy of about 98% was about few seconds. Thus, ANN is a ϑ = 0°). The overall optimal design curves are shown in
very powerful prediction tool and it is a good alternative to Figs. 15 and 16.
FEA to solve a very complex problem, such as in our case Graphs in Fig. 15 shows the effect of various AFRP thick-
calculating the load capacity, maximum strain and stress of ness tf, steel thickness ts and tube length L with constant
AFRP strengthening steel tubes. tube diameter D. It can be seen that the ultimate load capac-
ity increases significantly with the increase of AFRP thick-
ness. However, with the increase of the height of the tube
8 Parametric Study (increase in slenderness ratio), the gain in load capacity is
less significant.
The adopted neural network can be used as a conven- Figure 15 also indicates that when the thickness of
tional function to predict further analysis within the range the steel tube increases from 1 mm to 2 mm, the load
of parameters. Therefore, a limited parametric study was increases by a minimum of 86% and this for all tube
then performed to extend the existing database on the height. In other parts by increasing the AFRP thickness
compressive strength of AFRP strengthening steel tubes from 1 mm to 3 mm, the load capacity increases by 20%
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 167
0.8
60
Load [kN]
0.7
0.6 55
0.5 50
0.4
45 ts = 1 mm
0.3
D = 58 mm
0.2 Load (Training) ϑ = 0°
40
Load (Verification) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.1 Linear fit AFRP thickness [mm]
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 (b) 95
L = 630 mm (λ = 32)
Observed from design point L = 800 mm (λ = 40)
90 L = 1000 mm (λ = 50)
All data: Strain (R2=0.9454) L = 1300 mm (λ = 65)
1.0 85 L = 1600 mm (λ = 80)
Load [kN]
0.9
80
Predicted from surface response
0.8
75
0.7
0.6 70
0.5 ts = 1.5 mm
65
0.4 D = 58 mm
ϑ = 0°
60
0.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.2 Strain (Training) AFRP thickness [mm]
Strain (Verification) (c) 120
0.1 Linear fit L = 630 mm (λ = 32)
0.0 115 L = 800 mm (λ = 40)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 L = 1000 mm (λ = 50)
110 L = 1300 mm (λ = 65)
Observed from design point L = 1600 mm (λ = 80)
105
Load [kN]
0.9 95
Predicted from surface response
0.8 90
0.7 85
ts = 2 mm
0.6 80 D = 58 mm
0.5 ϑ = 0°
75
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
0.4
AFRP thickness [mm]
0.3
0.2 Stress (Training) Fig. 15 Effect to AFRP thickness (tf) and tube height (L) on compres-
Stress (Verification) sive strength; a 1 mm Steel tube b 1.5 mm Steel tube c 2 mm Steel
0.1 Linear fit tube
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Observed from design point
for 630 mm tube height and only 10% for 1700 mm tube
height. The load capacity increased by 30% for speci-
Fig. 14 Neural network prediction Regressions of training, validation
point simulated by ANN ANSYS 4-6-3 mens with 1 mm steel thickness and 3 mm AFRP com-
pared to control tube (without AFRP strengthening),
13
168 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
120
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 169
Table 8 Spearman correlation matrix between each input and output parameters. (Color figure online)
Tube Tube Steel AFRP Maximum Maximum
Parameters Load
Diameter Length Thickness Thickness strain stress
Tube
1 0.024 0.031 – 0.024 0.717 0.291 – 0.108
diameter
Tube
0.024 1 – 0.024 – 0.015 – 0.176 – 0.440 – 0.681
length
Steel
0.031 – 0.024 1 0.006 0.578 – 0.111 0.054
thickness
AFRP
– 0.024 – 0.015 0.006 1 0.161 – 0.676 – 0.406
thickness
Load 0.717 – 0.176 0.578 0.161 1 0.110 – 0.001
Maximum
0.291 – 0.440 – 0.111 – 0.676 0.110 1 0.701
strain
Stress
– 0.108 – 0.681 0.054 – 0.406 – 0.001 0.701 1
Maximum
Correlogram of the Spearman rank correlation matrix: Positive correlations are displayed in red and negative correlations in blue color. The
intensity of the color and the values are proportional to the strength of the correlation. Gray and white are the non-significant correlation
whereas tube diameter D and steel thickness ts have no sig- The performance of the ANN models was evaluated on
nificant influence. the basis of mean square error (MSE) and regression values
The sensitivity analysis shows that all of the design (R2). The ANN predicted results shows a good agreement
parameters cited above contribute more or less on the load- with experimental and FEA results, with ANSYS-ANN
carrying capacity. This could help researchers and design- model showing slightly better performance than MATLAB-
ers make decisions to meet requirements when designing a ANN model.
particular system. The comparative analysis of the results demonstrates
that the ANN models have a high degree of consistency for
predicting the compressive load, the maximum stress, and
10 Conclusions strain of the tubes. Using both ANSYS-ANN and MATLAB-
ANN, a user-friendly function can be derived to instantly
This study presents an artificial neural network (ANN) predict the strength of the specimens within the range of
approach to predict the compressive strength of AFRP- input parameters. Therefore, this will avoid reliance on
strengthening circular hollow section (CHS) steel tubes. The costly destructive experimental testing and time-consuming
influence of 4 input parameters such as AFRP thickness, analysis packages.
steel tube thickness, tube diameter, and steel tube height In future work, a large number of data of experimental
was investigated. ANN models were developed using two data and FEA simulation needs to be included for the
methods, the MATLAB neural network toolbox and a neural training datasets including a wider range of parameters
network tool built into ANSYS Workbench. (such as material proprieties and fiber orientation) to
1.0
extend the prediction capability of the ANN model. Also,
Tube diameter (D) previously published results must be taken as a valida-
0.8
Tube length (L) tion dataset. Moreover, different ANN types have to be
0.6 Steel thickness (ts)
explored to find out the optimal tools to be used as a
Overall sensitivity value
13
170 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
Fig. 18 Schematic of ANSYS Workbench: a Static structural module parameters, d. Nonlinear Analysis of the final model, e generate all
to run the linear elastic analysis, b Run a linear buckling analysis and models using DoE and train the ANN using Response surface mod-
exporting the geometry with imperfection for nonlinear analysis, c ule, f Sensitivity analysis and relative weight of each input’s param-
ACP module used to design the composite material with the required eters on the outputs
Appendix 2
See Table 9.
Table 9 The following table DP Diameter Tube length Steel AFRP Maximum load capacity (kN)
shows the maximum load D (mm) L (mm) thick- thickness
capacity of all the (DoE) ness tf (mm) ANSYS FEA MATLAB ANN ANSYS ANN
generated models. These cases ts (mm)
were analyzed numerically and
using ANSYS-ANN (4-6-3) and 1 58 700 1 1 50.48 48.28 50.22
MATLAB-ANN (4-16-3)
2 58 700 1 2 54.92 54.15 54.76
3 58 700 1 3 59.40 59.84 63.49
4 58 700 1 0 66.01 65.84 66.34
5 58 700 1.5 0 75.06 70.46 72.65
6 58 700 1.5 1 79.63 76.85 80.57
7 58 700 1.5 2 83.97 82.97 86.41
8 58 700 1.5 3 88.96 89.31 90.26
9 58 700 2 0 99.12 98.10 100.92
10 58 700 2 1 103.74 103.32 105.86
11 58 700 2 2 108.12 108.28 111.51
12 58 700 2 3 112.94 113.45 118.52
13 58 900 1 0 49.47 49.07 46.99
14 58 900 1 1 53.46 52.45 52.69
15 58 900 1 2 56.62 55.09 58.72
16 58 900 1 3 59.46 57.39 57.54
17 58 900 1.5 0 73.48 73.73 71.11
18 58 900 1.5 1 77.98 77.86 77.17
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 171
Table 9 (continued)
DP Diameter Tube length Steel AFRP Maximum load capacity (kN)
D (mm) L (mm) thick- thickness
ness tf (mm) ANSYS FEA MATLAB ANN ANSYS ANN
ts (mm)
13
172 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
Table 9 (continued)
DP Diameter Tube length Steel AFRP Maximum load capacity (kN)
D (mm) L (mm) thick- thickness
ness tf (mm) ANSYS FEA MATLAB ANN ANSYS ANN
ts (mm)
13
International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174 173
Table 9 (continued)
DP Diameter Tube length Steel AFRP Maximum load capacity (kN)
D (mm) L (mm) thick- thickness
ness tf (mm) ANSYS FEA MATLAB ANN ANSYS ANN
ts (mm)
13
174 International Journal of Steel Structures (2020) 20(1):156–174
Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2013). Behavior of square and rectangular ultra with FRP reinforcements using artificial neural networks. Con-
high-strength concrete-filled FRP tubes under axial compression. struction and Building Materials, 30, 556–568. https: //doi.
Composites Part B-Engineering, 54, 97–111. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.008.
Park, J. W., Yeom, H. J., & Yoo, J. H. (2013). Axial loading tests and Tao, Z., Han, L. H., & Zhuang, J. P. (2007). Axial loading behavior
FEM analysis of slender square hollow section (SHS) stub col- of CFRP strengthened concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns.
umns strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymers. Inter- Advances in Structural Engineering, 10(1), 37–46.
national Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 731–743. Tenza-Abril, A. J., Villacampa, Y., Solak, A. M., & Baeza-Brotons, F.
Pham, T. M., & Hadi, M. N. S. (2014). Predicting stress and strain (2018). Prediction and sensitivity analysis of compressive strength
of FRP-confined square/rectangular columns using artificial in segregated lightweight concrete based on artificial neural net-
neural networks. Journal of Composites for Construction, 18(6), work using ultrasonic pulse velocity. Construction and Building
04014019. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.00004 Materials, 189, 1173–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildma
77. t.2018.09.096.
Shaat, A., & Fam, A. (2006). Axial loading tests on short and long Wu, Q. J., Wang, C., & Zhi, X. D. (2018). Experimental and simula-
hollow structural steel columns retrofitted using carbon fibre rein- tion studies of failure modes of GFRP-reinforced short steel tubes
forced polymers. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(4), under axially compressive loads. Engineering Mechanics, 35(8),
458–470. https://doi.org/10.1139/L05-042. 184–191. https: //doi.org/10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2017.05.0326.
Silvestre, N., Young, B., & Camotim, D. (2008). Non-linear behaviour Zurada, J. M. (1992). Introduction to artificial neural systems (Vol. 8):
and load-carrying capacity of CFRP-strengthened lipped channel West publishing company St. Paul.
steel columns. Engineering Structures, 30(10), 2613–2630. https
://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.02.010. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Tanarslan, H. M., Secer, M., & Kumanlioglu, A. (2012). An approach jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
for estimating the capacity of RC beams strengthened in shear
Affiliations
1
Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control and Information Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology,
of the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
Harbin 150090, China
2
Key Lab of Smart Prevention and Mitigation of Civil
Engineering Disasters of the Ministry of Industry
13