International Journal of Steel Structures Online ISSN 2093-6311

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-019-00276-6 Print ISSN 1598-2351

Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) Based Compressive Strength

Prediction of AFRP Strengthened Steel Tube
Abderrahim Djerrad1,2 · Feng Fan1,2 · Xu‑dong Zhi1,2 · Qi‑jian Wu1,2

Received: 11 June 2019 / Accepted: 2 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.:(0123456789)
 International Journal of Steel Structures

1 Introduction

In recent decades, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) compos-

ites have been widely applied in strengthening structures
due to their numerous advantages such as high strength and
the stiffness-to-weight ratio (Shaat and Fam 2006; Tao et al.
2007; Bambach et al. 2009; Ozbakkaloglu 2013). The most
commonly used application is the external confinement of
concrete and steel structures with FRP composites.
A large number of experimental and numerical studies
have been performed on the behavior of FRP strengthening
a circular hollow section (CHS) using different fibers types
such as carbon (CFRP), glass (GFRP) and aramid (AFRP)
(Haedir et al. 2009; Gao et al. 2013; Lesani et al. 2015;
Kumar and Senthil 2016). All results of these experimental
studies have shown a significant improvement in structural
properties such as strength and stiffness. More recently
(Djerrad et al. 2019) and (Wu et al. 2018) both conducted
experimental and numerical studies to investigate the behav-
ior of externally strengthened CHS steel tube using AFRP
& GFRP, respectively, and found a good agreement between
experimental and FEA results in terms of overall behavior.
All these laboratory experiments provide immediate
experience and results. But, sometimes the cost of these
laboratory experiments prevents carrying out wide compre- Fig. 2  Finite element mesh of columns with boundary conditions and
hensive tests. Numerical analyses using mostly the Finite loading
Element Method (FEM) are also a reliable alternative and
provide valuable results concerning reinforcement with
composite materials (Silvestre et al. 2008; Park et al. 2013;
Abdallah et al. 2017). But in some cases, these analyses are
also computationally expensive and time-consuming.
Consequently, alternative methods of function evalu-
ations, such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are
commonly applied in engineering to reduce the number of
experimental tests and also minimize the costs inherent in
these experiments and simulations. ANNs are particularly
used to solve difficult and tedious problems. In addition,
they are efficient in terms of calculation and can gener-
ate results instantly. ANNs, once they have been correctly
trained, validated and tested, can be applied to solve many
difficult and complex problems. Applications of neural net-
works in civil engineering have increased and continue to
increase in recent years. A detailed state-of-the-art review
of the previous research article on the use of neural net-
works in civil engineering (Lazarevska et al. 2014) and
(Adeli 2001). They are particularly applied in areas such
as structural engineering, construction engineering, envi-
ronmental and water resources were ANN can be used as
a prediction tool (Naderpour et al. 2010; Tanarslan et al.
2012; Koroglu et al. 2012; Dantas et al. 2013; Pham and
Hadi 2014; Ahmadi et al. 2014; Naderpour et al. 2018; Deng
Fig. 1  Finite element mesh of columns with initial geometric imper- et al. 2018). They have also been widely used to predict the
fection (overemphasis) compressive strength and of concrete material (Deng et al.

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

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.

Table 2  Material properties of Kevlar 49 embedded with E51-Epoxy

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)

AFRP Kevlar 79 5.5 2.3 2.0 1400 30 280 140

­49a

1: Longitudinal direction, 2–3: Transverse direction

a
 Composition: 60% Kevlar 49 Unidirectional fibers in an epoxy matrix

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

S1-900-A1 1 1/90° 900 54.83 53.46 0.975

S1-900-A2 1 2/90° 900 58.79 56.61 0.963
S1-900-A3 1 3/90° 900 62.34 59.46 0.954
Mean 0.964
COV 0.011

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

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
the capability of the developed ANN model in predicting
the load-carrying capacity by conducting some parametric
studies.
The comparison of the results of these new cases obtained
by the ANSYS-ANN and MATLAB-ANN model with
FEA results showed that both approaches had an excellent
capability to predict the strength of the AFRP strengthen-
ing steel tubes. The selected ANSYS-ANN model predicts
results with high precision than MATLAB-ANN. This study
indicated that the artificial neural network combined with
FEA software is a powerful and reliable tool for predicting
results also an alternative for expensive and time-consuming
experimental programs.
2 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis
To ensure the reliability of the FEA database, the developed
FE model and simulation process was adopted from the find-
ings of the study previously conducted by (Djerrad et al.
2019). It consists of a 3D non-linear FE simulation of circu-
lar hollow section (CHS) steel tube retrofitted with aramid
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-
linearities. The layered structure solid element SOLID185
as described by ANSYS Mechanical User’s Guide: PDF
Documentation for Release 17.2 (2016) is suitable to model
layered thin-thick shells or solids. Therefore, it is adopted
in this FE model to investigate the behavior of thin-walled
steel tube and retrofitting materials involving AFRP. The
SOLID185 element is defined by eight nodes having three
degrees-of-freedom at each node: three translations in the
directions x, y, and z. An initial deformation approximating
the Eigenvalue-buckling analysis was performed into the FE
model to predict the final deformation shape of the model.
A sensitive analysis was performed to select the appropri-
ate mesh size, able to predict all results within a tolerable
13
International Journal of Steel Structures
error margin. A mesh size of 3 mm × 3 mm (length–width)
was adopted for all models as it offers better convergence
and more accurate results with reasonable processing time.
The boundary conditions are provided in the model accord-
ing to the experimental setup and assumed to be simply sup-
ported. Both ends of the tube are modeled as rigid part. The
bottom end of the tube is restrained from displacements in
x, y, and z-directions and rotation in z-directions (­ UX, ­UY,
­UZ, ­RZ = 0), while the top end of the tube the displacement
is restrained in x, y directions and rotations along z-direction
­(UX, ­UY, ­RZ = 0). The load is applied at the top end of the
model as a rigid displacement of 10 cm increasing linearly in
the negative z-direction, sufficiently to reach the peak load.
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
relatively high slenderness ratio, the debonding phenomenon
can be ignored to avoid complex and time-consuming simu-
lation. Since the FE model can still accurately simulate load
capacity, maximum strain, and stress. So, a “Perfect Bond”
was assumed between the steel and FRP composite with any
sliding or separation phenomena. The adopted model, mesh
and boundary conditions are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
3 Material Properties
The material properties used in the present FE model are
based on the experimental study (Djerrad et al. 2019). The
steel model was considered to be homogeneous and isotropic
with material nonlinearity. The young modulus (ES), poison
ratio (υ) and yield strength (FY) were used to model the lin-
ear elastic proprieties using “ISOTROPIC ELASTIC” option
in ANSYS. The nonlinear behavior was modeled by specify-
ing the stress–strain curve defined by the “MULTILINEAR
ISOTROPIC” option.
The AFRP composite was made with VF = 60% fibers
and VM = 40% epoxy matrix. The unidirectional aramid fiber
used in this study is commercially available as DuPont™
International Journal of Steel Structures
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-
component A: solvent-free epoxy resin and B: hardener is
used as matrix and adhesive. In addition to the proprieties of
materials provided by the manufacturers, tests were carried
out to have more precise results. The AFRP composites are
considered as an orthotropic and elastic material modeled by
ACP Prep-Post and assumed to behave linearly until failure.
“ORTHOTROPIC ELASTICITY” and “ORTHOTROPIC
STRESS AND STRAIN” options are employed to model
the elastic behavior of the AFRP using the young modulus
(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
to simulate the damage initiation and damage progression
behavior of AFRP with material propriety degradation set
to 0.5. Thus, once the AFRP reach the damage limit the
stiffness is reduced by 50%. All the measured mechanical
properties of the involved materials: steel and AFRP used
for this analysis are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
4 Validation of the Simulation Process
The numerical analysis of AFRP strengthened (CHS) steel
tube is developed and validated with experimental tests to
ensure the reliability and acceptability of the FEM and the
analysis process. More details of the experimental setup and
process can be found in (Djerrad et al. 2019).
The comparison between the results obtained from the
present FE analysis and the experiment are given in Table 3
as well as the load versus axial shortening curves in Fig. 3
and failure modes in Fig. 4.
Considering the load versus axial shortening curves, we
can see that the FEA curves follow the path experimental
curves, which reasonably proves the accuracy of the simula-
tion. Also, the similarities of overall failure modes, AFRP
failure location and peak-load results between the experi-
mental and the FE models. The mean ratio and coefficient
of variance (COV) of ultimate load are 0.964 and 0.011,
respectively. This suggests that the FE modeling of AFRP
strengthening steel tubes using the proper parameters are
validated and there remains a good agreement to use in
upcoming analysis to predict the failure modes and carry-
ing load capacity.
5 Artificial Neural Network Theory
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are computing models
mainly used in machine learning to solve mathematical prob-
lems, as the name suggests they are modeled loosely after
biological neural systems (human brain). These networks
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,
bias and the activation function. The artificial neurons can
achieve better performances than the conventional models
by calculating specific mathematical functions. More details
of the functioning of ANN can be found in the following
documents (Zurada 1992).
Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) artificial neural network
was adopted in this study. A supervised multilayer feedfor-
ward neural network trained with the standard backpropa-
gation learning algorithm based on the Levenberg–Mar-
quardt algorithm (Beale and Demuth 2019). Such networks
are trained by progressively improving the performance to
achieve a specific task. The ANN consisting of one input
layer, one hidden layer, and an output layer. The number of
13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

Table 4  Design points used in the FE simulation database

Inputs Fiber orientation Steel cross- Steel thickness AFRP Thickness Specimen Length Slenderness ratio
(ϑ) section ts (mm) tf (mm) L (mm) λ (kl/r)
D (mm)

Design point Transverse 0° 700 From 20 to 86

ranges 58 0 900
(129 data)
76 1 1 1200
88 1.5 2 1500
100 2 3 1700
Mean 84.8 1.5 1.5 1200 59.5
SD 25.19 0.50 1.29 412.31 36.06
COV 0.297 0.333 0.861 0.344 0.606

input and output neurons depends on the problem. The num-
ber of hidden neurons is determined by an error sensitivity
test. Each MLP layers are fully connected such that neurons
between adjacent layers are fully connected in pairs, while
neurons of the same layer don’t share any connection. The
main characteristic of the selected network is their ability to
solve problems with non-linear relationships between inputs
and the outputs with minimum error.
The network passes through two steps, the feed-forward
step, and the backpropagation step. First, in the feed-for-
ward step, a hidden layer neuron takes the value of each of
the connected inputs neurons and multiplies it with their
connections weight, the weighted sum of all connected
inputs neurons and the neurons bias value is put into a
so-called activation function (transfer function), which
mathematically transforms the value to a probability value
(between 0 and 1) before it finally can be passed to the out-
put layer. The same process is repeated again between the
hidden layer and the output layer to calculate the output
prediction. This way the inputs are propagated through the
whole network. The logistic sigmoid activation function is
given as Eq. 1 was employed in both hidden and output lay-
ers since it can result in a well-trained process. The structure

Fig. 6  Structure of the proposed

multilayer perceptron ANN
model (three layers)

13
International Journal of Steel Structures
of an artificial neuron is shown in Fig. 5 and the mathemati-
cal model is shown as follows:
1
f (sum) =
1 + e−sum
n
∑ strengthening circular hollow section (CHS) steel tube using
sum = Xi Wi + B
i=1
where f(sum) is an activation function; sum is the weighted
summation, Xi is the input of the neuron i, Wi is the connec-
tion weight between two neurons and B is bias value.
Second, the backpropagation (BP) step is one of the
multitude algorithms used to train the artificial neural net-
work. The algorithm continuously backward propagates
the error and adjust each of the network weights and bias
values (output and hidden layer) towards the direction that
minimizes the error of the network output. So, that they
cause the predicted output to be closer to the target output,
thereby the whole network error is reduced to a satisfac-
tory level. Many techniques can be used in backpropagation
algorithms such as (gradient descent, quasi-Newton, and
Levenberg–Marquardt).
6 Methodology
Once the finite element model is validated with experimental
tests, the same model and simulation process are further
used to generate multiple design points (DP) using differ-
ent design variables. The DP dataset (associated inputs and
outputs) divided into training, test and validation points are
used to develop a number of ANNs. Next, we compare the
ANN predicted results with FE simulation and experimen-
tal results and select the network with better performances
(lowest error). The selected ANN with acceptable accuracy
is also further used to perform other analyses, such as para-
metric study and sensitivity analysis.
Fig. 7  Flowchart of the methodology of ANN model development
6.1 Finite Element Test Database
To create an efficient neural network, a sufficient amount of
(1) data is necessary for training, verifying and testing the devel-
oped ANN. For that, finite element analysis of 129 cases
is carried out on the axial compressive strength of AFRP
(2)
ANSYS Workbench and ANSYS Composite Prep-Post tool.
Both, the FE model and simulation process employed in the
validation test were adopted in this analysis, with the follow-
ing varying input parameters (design variables):
1. Thickness of the steel tube (ts) in mm.
2. Thickness of the AFRP (tf) in mm.
3. Height of the steel tube (L) in mm.
4. Steel tube outer diameter (D).
The predicted output variables are:
1. Ultimate load capacity (kN).
2. Maximum Von Mises stress (mm).
3. Maximum Von Mises strain (mm).
The lower and upper bounds for the adopted parameters
are shown in Table 4. In ANSYS Workbench this can be
done by using Design of Experiments (DoE) algorithms as
shown in Fig. 18e in Appendix 1. DoE tools can be found in
ANSYS Workbench in the Design Explorer (DE) module.
DOE is a technique used to efficiently determine a design
space by generating a series of sampling points automatically
or manually with a multiple set of parameters within a range,
so as to reduce the number of FE runs needed to identify the
influence of each input parameters on the predicted results.
ANSYS provides various DOE methods and algorithms for
data point generation (Latin hypercube sampling, optimal
space-filling, sparse grid, box-Behnken design, central com-
posite design, and custom point). Here, we set the generated
point to custom points using manufacturable values, which
13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

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

6.2 Construction of Artificial Neural Network

MSE (Strain)
3x10 -5

In this study, two different approaches have been used to 2x10 -5

train the ANN models. The first approach was using the
Neural Net Fitting toolbox in MATLAB version R2018a. 1x10 -5
The second approach was using a built-in neural network
tool in ANSYS Workbench. 0
MLP-ANN with one input layer, one hidden layer, and
one output layer was considered in the present study. The 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Number of hidden neurons
number of neurons of the input layer is equal to the number
of input parameters (4 Neurons), the hidden layer has neu-
rons varying from 1 to 18. The output layer corresponds to Fig. 9  Maximum squared error (MSE) of maximum strain versus
number of hidden-layer neurons
the number of output parameters (3 Neurons). The next step
after the training was to identify the best network with the
corresponding number of hidden neurons. Figure 6 illus- √
trates the structure of the neural network applied in the pre-
√ n
√1 ∑
sent study.
RMSE = √ (T − Oi )2 (4)
n i=1 i
Mean square error (MSE), root mean square error
(RMSE) and regression values ­(R2) were used as the cri-
terion to stop the training of networks and for selecting the
� ∑n �
2
i=1 (Ti − Oi )
perfect network. MSE is the average squared difference (5)
2
R =1− ∑n 2
between the FEA results and ANN results (outputs). RMSE i=1 (Oi )

is the root of MSE. The regression value (­ R2) measures the

where n is the total number of training dataset; Ti and Oi
correlation between the FEA results and ANN results (out-
are the target (training sample value) and the ANN output
puts); It should be noted that R­ 2 = 1 means a close correla-
2 values, respectively. The collected database using DoE is
tion relationship, ­R  = 0 means random relationship. MSE,
arbitrarily divided into 75% are used for training the network
RMSE and ­R2 value are computed by Eqs. 3–5, respectively.
(92 samples). 15% are used to validate that the network is
n generalizing and stop the training (18 samples). 10% are
1∑
MSE = (T − Oi )2 (3)
n i=1 i

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
International Journal of Steel Structures

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

Maximum stress [Mpa]

550
200
500
Load [kN]

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)

model was randomly divided using (dividerand). The Lev-

enberg–Marquardt backpropagation algorithm (trainlm)
1.0x10-2
FEA-ANSYS the algorithm has been successfully used and highly recom-
8.0x10-3 ANN-ANSYS mended (Beale and Demuth 2019) for construction of the
Maximum strain [mm/mm]

ANN-MATLAB neural network model. In total, 18 networks were trained

6.0x10-3 with different parameters, there is an input layer, where input
data are presented to the network (4 Neurons) and an output
4.0x10-3 layer with 3 neurons, hidden networks has neurons varying
from 1 to 18.
2.0x10-3
In ANSYS, several different algorithms  are available
0.0 to generate the response surface (Kriging, Nonparametric
Regression, Sparse Grid, and Neural Network) they can be
-2.0x10 -3 found in response surface module in Fig. 18e in Appendix 1.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Design point In this study, Neural Network algorithm has been adopted to
develop the ANN for predicting each of the output’s param-
eters (by generating response surfaces) based on the DoE
Fig. 12  Comparison of maximum strain between FEA and predicted
results of the testing dataset using ANN-ANSYS (4-2-3) and ANN- generated dataset. ANSYS-ANN is a three-layer network and
MATLAB (4-3-3) the mathematical solution of the output is shown as follows:

used as an independent performance test of the network (12

( n )
∑
samples). fk (xi ) = K wjk gj (xi ) (6)
The MATLAB ANN model was developed using Neural i=1

Net Fitting toolbox (nntool) to estimate the strength of AFRP

where K is a hyperbolic tangent function; gj(xi) is the func-
strengthening steel tubes. The software is largely used and
tion of the hidden layer; xi is the inputs value; wjk is the
can provide quick, dependable and reliable results. One main
weighted function, a learning algorithm (least squares
data set was used to train, validate and test the proposed

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

method) which reduces the distance between targets and the

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)

1.6905 trained with a number of hidden networks varying from 1

1.6870
1.6780
1.9113
1.4809
1.4958
1.4615
1.4874
1.5670
1.7507
to 10 neurons (limit imposed by ANSYS workbench). The
MATLAB ANN

Ansys Project Schematic is shown in the Fig. 18 in Appen-

dix. 1.
82.54
106.73
150.84
204.61
61.68
50.14
46.82
44.37
53.67
72.94
P (kN)

In the first step, the developed networks model in ANSYS

Load

and MATLAB are verified using a comparison of results

obtained from the FE analysis. The best networks with the
Stress maximum

lowest error have been selected for step 2 to predict some

new cases (10 samples) not included in the training database.
The overall process adopted for the ANN model is shown in
σ (MPa)

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)

To validate the developed ANNs in ANSYS and MATLAB

Load

(with different hidden neurons), the mean square error

(MSE) between the predicted and the FEA results are com-
Stress maximum

pared. All ANNs were tested using real input–output values

instead of normalized values. The MSE of the ANN-ANSYS
Table 6  Comparison between FEA results and predicted ANN results of new design point

and ANN-MATLAB predicted results are shown in Figs. 8, 9

σ (MPa)

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)

which were observed in ANNs with 6 hidden neurons using

1.8748
1.8495
1.8216
1.7957
1.6976
1.6742
1.6590
1.6604
1.6664
1.6753

ANN-ANSYS and 42.366 with 16 hidden neurons using

ANN-MATLAB. For maximum strain, the lowest errors
ANSYS FEA

were 3.11 × 10−8 using ANN-ANSYS with 2 hidden neu-

79.63
106.58
145.81
190.01
56.28
48.77
48.09
44.67
47.73
64.66
P (kN)

rons and 2.19 × 10−7 using ANN-MATLAB with 3 hidden

Load

neurons. For maximum stress, the lowest errors were 167.24

observed in ANNs with 10 hidden neurons using ANN-
tf (mm)

ANSYS and 192.12 with 17 hidden neurons using ANN-

MATLAB. The best performance ANSYS and MATLAB
1
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
1
1

ANNs selected for further studies are resumed in Table 5.

ts (mm)

Figures 11, 12 and 13 shows the relationship between

FEA obtained results and the value obtained (training data-
1.5
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1

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

used in the training process. The obtained results and rela-

tive error are listed in Tables 6 and 7.
L (mm)

700
800
900
900
1200
1500
1600
1650
1700
1700

Once more the most accurate predicted results were found

using ANN-ANSYS. The regression values of ANN-ANSYS
DP

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

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

1 1.0362 1.0036 0.9943 0.9648 1.1090 1.0154

2 1.0027 0.9980 1.0030 0.9986 1.0964 0.9942
3 1.0004 1.0140 1.0211 0.9666 1.0856 0.9971
4 1.0096 1.0393 0.9817 0.9286 0.9395 0.9967
5 1.0183 1.0011 0.9929 0.9124 1.1463 0.9602
6 1.0127 1.0019 1.0010 0.9727 1.1193 1.0181
7 0.9993 0.9957 0.9997 1.0270 1.1351 0.9800
8 0.9946 0.9977 1.0017 1.0068 1.1163 1.0612
9 1.0160 0.9939 0.9801 0.8894 1.0634 1.0035
10 1.0008 0.9938 1.0183 0.8864 0.9569 0.9942
Mean 1.009 1.004 0.999 0.955 1.077 1.002
SD 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.049 0.072 0.027
COV 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.052 0.067 0.027
MSE 1.310 0.001 17.620 38.365 0.026 61.987
RMSE 1.144 0.024 4.198 6.194 0.161 7.873
R2 value 0.9997 0.9283 0.9314 0.9951 0.3744 0.8069

of the whole data which include the training dataset and the
new cases (139 cases) for load, maximum strain, and maxi-
mum stress were respectively 0.9924, 0.9454 and 0.9692.
For ANN-MATLAB the regression values were respectively
0.9799, 0.4521 and 0.9547.
In our further study, we will concentrate only on predict-
ing the maximum load capacity. Therefore, ANSYS-ANN
4-6-3 has been selected as the one to be used. Since its offer-
ings the best performance results for MSE, RMSE and ­R2
values among all networks. The regression values for train-
ing and validation of ANSYS-ANN 4-6-3 are summarized
in Fig. 14.
Generating and analyzing all 139 models took a huge
amount of time. On a medium-performance computer, an
average of 2 h was required for each model, with a total of
about 300 h to analysis all models. Meanwhile, the time
necessary for an ANN to predict the results with the accu-
racy of about 98% was about few seconds. Thus, ANN is a
very powerful prediction tool and it is a good alternative to
FEA to solve a very complex problem, such as in our case
calculating the load capacity, maximum strain and stress of
AFRP strengthening steel tubes.
8 Parametric Study
The adopted neural network can be used as a conven-
tional function to predict further analysis within the range
of parameters. Therefore, a limited parametric study was
then performed to extend the existing database on the
compressive strength of AFRP strengthening steel tubes
by varying the geometrical parameters. The ultimate load
capacity (P) was the only output parameter considered in
this parametric study. The ANSYS-ANN model (4-6-3)
is used to find out the influence of each input parameters
on the behavior of the structure. Design parameters and
their ranges considered for the parametric study are as fol-
lows: tube height (630 mm < L < 1700 mm), steel thickness
(1 mm < ts < 2 mm), AFRP thickness (0 mm < tf < 3 mm),
tube diameter (52 mm < D < 100 mm) and equivalent slen-
derness ratio (20 < λ < 86). Material properties and fiber ori-
entation are kept the same for the whole analysis.
For any investigated parameter, the others are kept
constant. The influence of that parameter is studied for
the ultimate load capacity using the numerical reference
model. The geometrical proprieties of the reference
model are based on the long tube specimen of (Djer-
rad et al. 2019) (D = 58 mm, t s= 1 mm, L = 900 mm and
ϑ = 0°). The overall optimal design curves are shown in
Figs. 15 and 16.
Graphs in Fig. 15 shows the effect of various AFRP thick-
ness tf, steel thickness ts and tube length L with constant
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
(increase in slenderness ratio), the gain in load capacity is
less significant.
Figure 15 also indicates that when the thickness of
the steel tube increases from 1 mm to 2 mm, the load
increases by a minimum of 86% and this for all tube
height. In other parts by increasing the AFRP thickness
from 1 mm to 3 mm, the load capacity increases by 20%

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

All data: Load (R2=0.99248) (a) 70

1.0 L = 630 mm (λ = 32)
L = 800 mm (λ = 40)
0.9 65 L = 1000 mm (λ = 50)
L = 1300 mm (λ = 65)
L = 1600 mm (λ = 80)
Predicted from surface response

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]

All data: Stress (R2=0.96924)

1.0 100

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
International Journal of Steel Structures

(a) 140 effective in increasing the strength of the tubes as steel

D = 52 mm (λ = 44) ts = 1 mm thickness and the tube height increases.
D = 62 mm (λ = 42) L = 900 mm
D = 70 mm (λ = 36) Graphs in Fig. 16 shows the effect of various AFRP thick-
120 ϑ = 0°
D = 86 mm (λ = 30)
D = 100 mm (λ = 25)
ness and tubes outer diameter on compressive load capac-
ity. It can be seen that the strength enhancement of external
Load [kN]

100 strengthening on the tube with a small diameter is really

insignificant. Where in relatively large diameter tubes the
80 strength, enhancement was really significant. Increasing the
AFRP thickness from 0 to 3 mm, the gain in load capac-
ity was about 18% for tube 52 < D < 70 mm regardless of
60
steel tube thickness. Where, the gain was about 100% for
D > 90 mm and steel tube thickness ts = 1, 1.5 mm and 32%
40 for D > 90 mm and steel tube thickness ts = 2 mm. This con-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
AFRP thickness [mm]
cludes that more we increase the ratio D/ts more is the gain
in load capacity. In general, we see that the model ANSYS-
(b) 160
ANN shows a good sign of a generalization within the lim-
D = 52 mm (λ = 50) ts = 1.5 mm
D = 62 mm (λ = 42) L = 900 mm ited range explored in this study.
140 D = 70 mm (λ = 37) ϑ = 0°
D = 86 mm (λ = 30)
D = 100 mm (λ = 26)
9 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis
Load [kN]

120

A nonlinear relation between parameters is evaluated using

100
Spearman’s correlation coefficient and a global sensitiv-
ity chart is generated to establish the overall correlation
80 between input and output parameters. Spearman correlation
coefficient is a monotonic nonparametric technique used to
60 evaluate the strength and direction (positive or negative) of
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 the correlation between two parameters. The strength of the
AFRP thickness [mm] correlation is indicated by a coefficient which varies between
+1 and -1. A higher value means a perfect degree of rela-
(c) 220 D = 52 mm (λ = 50) ts = 2 mm tionship between the two parameters. Where close to 0 mean
D = 62 mm (λ = 42) L = 900 mm
200 D = 70 mm (λ = 37) a weak relationship between the two parameters (0 mean
D = 86 mm (λ = 30) ϑ = 0°
D = 100 mm (λ = 26) no relationship at all). The direction of correlation is indi-
180 cated by the positive or negative sign; positive sign means
Load [kN]

160 a positive correlation and a negative sign mean a negative

correlation.
140
Using ANSYS Workbench this can be performed using
120 parameters correlation modules as presented in Fig. 18f in
Appendix 1. The database is directly imported from the DoE
100
using the predicted results. In this study, four variables and
80 three sensitivity characteristics were considered. The global
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 sensitivity chart shows the effect on each output parameter
due to a variation of each input parameters.
AFRP thickness [mm]
The Spearman correlation matrix and the global sensi-
tivity graph are given in Table 8 and Fig. 17, respectively.
Fig. 16  Effect to AFRP thickness ­(tf) and tube outer diameter (L) on
compressive strength; a 1 mm Steel tube b 1.5 mm Steel tube c 2 mm
Observations from the results of Spearman correlation
Steel tube matrix and global sensitivity chart the results can be sum-
marized as follows: the tube diameter D and steel thick-
ness ts both stand as the most critical parameter on the load
while, the load increased by only 15% for 2 mm steel capacity P while the tube length L and AFRP thickness
thickness with the same AFRP thickness. Therefore, it tf have less influence on the maximum load. On the other
can be seen that the external AFRP reinforcement is less hand, for maximum strain and stress, the tube length L and
AFRP thickness tf both have a high influence on the results,

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

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-
nificant influence.
The sensitivity analysis shows that all of the design
parameters cited above contribute more or less on the load-
carrying capacity. This could help researchers and design-
ers make decisions to meet requirements when designing a
particular system.
10 Conclusions
This study presents an artificial neural network (ANN)
approach to predict the compressive strength of AFRP-
strengthening circular hollow section (CHS) steel tubes. The
influence of 4 input parameters such as AFRP thickness,
steel tube thickness, tube diameter, and steel tube height
was investigated. ANN models were developed using two
methods, the MATLAB neural network toolbox and a neural
network tool built into ANSYS Workbench.
1.0
0.8
0.6
Overall sensitivity value
The performance of the ANN models was evaluated on
the basis of mean square error (MSE) and regression values
­(R2). The ANN predicted results shows a good agreement
with experimental and FEA results, with ANSYS-ANN
model showing slightly better performance than MATLAB-
ANN model.
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
strain of the tubes. Using both ANSYS-ANN and MATLAB-
ANN, a user-friendly function can be derived to instantly
predict the strength of the specimens within the range of
input parameters. Therefore, this will avoid reliance on
costly destructive experimental testing and time-consuming
analysis packages.
In future work, a large number of data of experimental
data and FEA simulation needs to be included for the
training datasets including a wider range of parameters
(such as material proprieties and fiber orientation) to
extend the prediction capability of the ANN model. Also,
Tube diameter (D) previously published results must be taken as a valida-
Tube length (L) tion dataset. Moreover, different ANN types have to be
Steel thickness (ts)
explored to find out the optimal tools to be used as a

AFRP thickness (tf)

0.4 prediction tool.
0.2
Acknowledgements  The financial support of Chinese National Natural
0.0
Science Foundation (Grant No. 51478144) is gratefully acknowledged.
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 Appendix 1
-0.8
See Fig. 18.
-1.0
Load Strain Maximum Stress Maximum
Output parameters

Fig. 17  Overall sensitivity chart of the input’s parameters on outputs

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

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

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)

19 58 900 1.5 2 81.21 81.20 80.46

20 58 900 1.5 3 84.41 84.09 84.66
21 58 900 2 0 96.90 98.15 96.79
22 58 900 2 1 101.82 102.04 100.43
23 58 900 2 2 105.16 105.22 105.41
24 58 900 2 3 108.57 107.96 110.97
25 58 1200 1 0 47.76 48.13 43.88
26 58 1200 1 1 50.73 51.14 49.39
27 58 1200 1 2 53.42 53.49 50.34
28 58 1200 1 3 56.28 55.26 48.95
29 58 1200 1.5 0 70.16 70.87 67.94
30 58 1200 1.5 1 74.21 74.39 70.65
31 58 1200 1.5 2 76.66 77.34 73.05
32 58 1200 1.5 3 79.39 79.76 77.73
33 58 1200 2 0 90.80 92.72 88.75
34 58 1200 2 1 97.09 96.49 93.06
35 58 1200 2 2 99.78 99.79 96.80
36 58 1200 2 3 102.21 102.64 100.05
37 58 1500 1 0 43.03 43.11 42.14
38 58 1500 1 1 45.33 45.76 45.01
39 58 1500 1 2 48.77 48.16 44.48
40 58 1500 1 3 50.81 50.33 47.20
41 58 1500 1.5 0 63.18 62.02 62.17
42 58 1500 1.5 1 66.32 65.12 64.07
43 58 1500 1.5 2 69.88 68.05 66.93
44 58 1500 1.5 3 72.04 70.84 70.82
45 58 1500 2 0 84.27 82.57 82.14
46 58 1500 2 1 86.74 85.75 86.83
47 58 1500 2 2 90.01 88.77 88.76
48 58 1500 2 3 92.67 91.64 90.10
49 58 1700 1 0 38.76 39.52 40.92
50 58 1700 1 1 41.19 41.74 42.28
51 58 1700 1 2 43.17 43.86 43.21
52 58 1700 1 3 44.92 45.89 47.95
53 58 1700 1.5 0 56.51 56.60 57.62
54 58 1700 1.5 1 59.47 59.44 60.24
55 58 1700 1.5 2 60.56 62.23 63.04
56 58 1700 1.5 3 63.89 65.00 66.12
57 58 1700 2 0 74.38 74.69 79.02
58 58 1700 2 1 76.61 77.29 83.05
59 58 1700 2 2 78.63 79.80 83.85
60 58 1700 2 3 80.55 82.24 84.25
61 62 630 1 0 54.61 54.17 56.66
62 62 630 1 1 60.78 63.35 61.58
63 62 630 1 3 80.64 81.99 77.25
64 62 630 2 0 107.46 105.56 107.97
65 62 630 2 1 113.00 113.18 114.94
66 62 630 2 3 128.49 129.03 130.30

13
International Journal of Steel Structures

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)

67 62 900 1 0 53.21 52.84 51.57

68 62 900 1 1 57.92 56.65 58.10
69 62 900 1 3 64.68 62.66 63.76
70 62 900 2 0 104.49 106.33 103.63
71 62 900 2 1 110.17 110.45 107.89
72 62 900 2 3 117.73 116.92 120.24
73 62 1700 1 0 44.85 44.55 44.11
74 62 1700 1 1 47.73 46.98 45.34
75 62 1700 1 3 51.94 51.41 51.23
76 62 1700 2 0 86.82 86.09 87.34
77 62 1700 2 1 89.82 88.97 91.17
78 62 1700 2 3 95.07 94.45 93.92
79 74 900 1 0 65.32 65.48 65.47
80 74 900 1 1 70.94 72.05 76.58
81 74 900 1 3 83.68 84.29 89.65
82 74 900 2 0 128.87 129.76 127.64
83 74 900 2 1 135.00 135.44 135.64
84 74 900 2 3 145.81 145.75 157.44
85 74 630 1 0 67.65 72.22 72.94
86 74 630 1 1 97.81 87.97 82.85
87 74 630 2 0 130.57 129.38 130.90
88 74 630 2 1 140.46 142.16 143.22
89 74 630 2 3 169.98 167.99 167.43
90 74 1700 1 1 64.66 64.60 56.96
91 74 1700 1 3 70.52 69.82 69.63
92 74 1700 2 1 124.10 124.60 116.53
93 74 1700 2 3 130.63 131.22 128.92
94 88 900 1 0 79.04 71.87 72.10
95 88 900 1 1 87.28 86.05 92.51
96 88 900 1 3 113.51 113.32 120.29
97 88 900 2 0 156.16 153.85 154.36
98 88 900 2 1 163.74 163.99 167.92
99 88 900 2 3 183.80 183.99 198.02
100 88 630 1 0 80.80 78.42 81.64
101 88 630 1 1 102.33 104.05 101.50
102 88 630 1 3 152.26 151.27 141.19
103 88 630 2 0 157.42 159.44 158.70
104 88 630 2 1 178.17 179.94 177.64
105 88 630 2 3 219.38 218.73 207.07
106 88 1700 1 1 81.64 86.56 69.12
107 88 1700 1 3 89.59 92.60 97.89
108 88 1700 2 0 149.33 161.55 131.46
109 88 1700 2 1 156.85 165.82 141.15
110 88 1700 2 3 165.38 172.92 167.42
111 100 900 1 1 123.10 84.60 108.97
112 100 900 1 3 143.68 127.74 143.15
113 100 900 2 0 179.37 171.83 179.47
114 100 900 2 1 190.01 188.21 195.06

13
 International Journal of Steel Structures

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)

115 100 900 2 3 224.33 220.07 222.29

116 100 630 1 3 121.38 161.20 161.87
117 100 630 2 0 184.62 184.71 185.25
118 100 630 2 3 280.75 260.34 228.84
119 100 1700 1 1 94.97 100.38 84.72
120 100 1700 1 3 104.15 107.48 125.09
121 100 1700 2 0 175.15 193.66 149.28
122 100 1700 2 1 182.56 198.37 163.61

References externally reinforced by carbon FRP sheets in pure bending. Thin-

Walled Structures, 47(10), 1136–1147. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2008.10.017.
Abdallah, M. H., Shazly, M., Mohamed, H. M., Masmoudi, R., &
Haji, M., Naderpour, H., & Kheyroddin, A. (2019). Experimental study
Mousa, A. (2017). Nonlinear finite element analysis of short and
on influence of proposed FRP-strengthening techniques on RC cir-
long reinforced concrete columns confined with GFRP tubes.
cular short columns considering different types of damage index.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 36(13), 972–987.
Composite Structures, 209, 112–128. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/07316​84417​69875​8.
comps​truct​.2018.10.088.
Adeli, H. (2001). Neural networks in civil engineering: 1989-2000.
Hedayat, A. A., Afzadi, E. A., Kalantaripour, H., Morshedi, E., &
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 16(2),
Iranpour, A. (2019). A new predictive model for the minimum
126–142. https​://doi.org/10.1111/0885-9507.00219​.
strength requirement of steel moment frames using artificial neu-
Ahmadi, M., Naderpour, H., & Kheyroddin, A. (2014). Utilization
ral network. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 116,
of artificial neural networks to prediction of the capacity of
69–81. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.soild​yn.2018.09.046.
CCFT short columns subject to short term axial load. Archives of
Jimenez-Martinez, M., & Alfaro-Ponce, M. (2019). Fatigue dam-
Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 14(3), 510–517. https​://doi.
age effect approach by artificial neural network. International
org/10.1016/j.acme.2014.01.006.
Journal of Fatigue, 124, 42–47. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfat​
ANSYS Mechanical User’s Guide: PDF Documentation for Release
igue.2019.02.043.
17.2 (2016). ANSYS, Inc.
Koroglu, M. A., Ceylan, M., Arslan, M. H., & Ilki, A. (2012). Esti-
Bambach, M. R., Jama, H. H., & Elchalakani, M. (2009). Axial
mation of flexural capacity of quadrilateral FRP-confined RC
capacity and design of thin-walled steel SHS strengthened with
columns using combined artificial neural network. Engineer-
CFRP. Thin-Walled Structures, 47(10), 1112–1121. https​://doi.
ing Structures, 42, 23–32. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​
org/10.1016/j.tws.2008.10.006.
ruct.2012.04.013.
Beale, M., M. Hagan, & Demuth, H. (2019). MATLAB Deep Learn-
Kumar, A. P., & Senthil, R. (2016). Behavior of CFRP strengthened
ing Toolbox™ User’s Guide: PDF Documentation for Release
CHS under axial static and axial cyclic loading. Ksce Journal
R2019a. The MathWorks, Inc.
of Civil Engineering, 20(4), 1493–1500. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
Dantas, A. T. A., Leite, M. B., & Nagahama, K. D. (2013). Prediction
s1220​5-015-0151-4.
of compressive strength of concrete containing construction and
Lazarevska, M., Knezevic, M., Cvetkovska, M., & Trombeva-Gavrilo-
demolition waste using artificial neural networks. Construction
ska, A. (2014). Application of Artificial Neural Networks in
and Building Materials, 38, 717–722. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Civil Engineering. Tehnicki Vjesnik-Technical Gazette, 21(6),
conbu​ildma​t.2012.09.026.
1353–1359.
Deng, F. M., He, Y. G., Zhou, S. X., Yu, Y., Cheng, H. G., & Wu,
Lesani, M., Bahaari, M. R., & Shokrieh, M. M. (2015). FRP wrapping
X. (2018). Compressive strength prediction of recycled concrete
for the rehabilitation of Circular Hollow Section (CHS) tubular
based on deep learning. Construction and Building Materials,
steel connections. Thin-Walled Structures, 90, 216–234. https​://
175, 562–569. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.conbui​ ldmat​ .2018.04.169.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2014.12.013.
Djerrad, A., Fan, F., Zhi, X., & Wu, Q. (2019). Experimental and FEM
Naderpour, H., Kheyroddin, A., & Amiri, G. G. (2010). Prediction of
analysis of AFRP strengthened short and long steel tube under
FRP-confined compressive strength of concrete using artificial
axial compression. Thin-Walled Structures, 139, 9–23.
neural networks. Composite Structures, 92(12), 2817–2829. https​
Gao, X., Balendra, T., & Koh, C. (2013). Buckling strength of slender
://doi.org/10.1016/j.comps​truct​.2010.04.008.
circular tubular steel braces strengthened by CFRP. Engineering
Naderpour, H., Nagai, K., Fakharian, P., & Haji, M. (2019). Innovative
Structures, 46, 547–556.
models for prediction of compressive strength of FRP-confined
Getahun, M. A., Shitote, S. M., & Gariy, Z. C. A. (2018). Artificial
circular reinforced concrete columns using soft computing meth-
neural network based modelling approach for strength prediction
ods. Composite Structures, 215, 69–84. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
of concrete incorporating agricultural and construction wastes.
comps​truct​.2019.02.048.
Construction and Building Materials, 190, 517–525. https​://doi.
Naderpour, H., Rafiean, A. H., & Fakharian, P. (2018). Compressive
org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2018.09.097.
strength prediction of environmentally friendly concrete using
Haedir, J., Bambach, M. R., Zhao, X. L., & Grzebieta, R. H. (2009).
artificial neural networks. Journal of Building Engineering, 16,
Strength of circular hollow sections (CHS) tubular beams
213–219. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.01.007.

13
International Journal of Steel Structures
Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2013). Behavior of square and rectangular ultra
high-strength concrete-filled FRP tubes under axial compression.
Composites Part B-Engineering, 54, 97–111.
Park, J. W., Yeom, H. J., & Yoo, J. H. (2013). Axial loading tests and
FEM analysis of slender square hollow section (SHS) stub col-
umns strengthened with carbon fiber reinforced polymers. Inter-
national Journal of Steel Structures, 13(4), 731–743.
Pham, T. M., & Hadi, M. N. S. (2014). Predicting stress and strain
of FRP-confined square/rectangular columns using artificial
neural networks. Journal of Composites for Construction, 18(6),
04014019. https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.00004​
77.
Shaat, A., & Fam, A. (2006). Axial loading tests on short and long
hollow structural steel columns retrofitted using carbon fibre rein-
forced polymers. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(4),
458–470. https​://doi.org/10.1139/L05-042.
Silvestre, N., Young, B., & Camotim, D. (2008). Non-linear behaviour
and load-carrying capacity of CFRP-strengthened lipped channel
steel columns. Engineering Structures, 30(10), 2613–2630. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.engst​ruct.2008.02.010.
Tanarslan, H. M., Secer, M., & Kumanlioglu, A. (2012). An approach
for estimating the capacity of RC beams strengthened in shear
Affiliations
Abderrahim Djerrad1,2 · Feng Fan1,2 · Xu‑dong Zhi1,2 · Qi‑jian Wu1,2
1
Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control
of the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin 150090, China
2
Key Lab of Smart Prevention and Mitigation of Civil
Engineering Disasters of the Ministry of Industry
with FRP reinforcements using artificial neural networks. Con-
struction and Building Materials, 30, 556–568. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​t.2011.12.008.
Tao, Z., Han, L. H., & Zhuang, J. P. (2007). Axial loading behavior
of CFRP strengthened concrete-filled steel tubular stub columns.
Advances in Structural Engineering, 10(1), 37–46.
Tenza-Abril, A. J., Villacampa, Y., Solak, A. M., & Baeza-Brotons, F.
(2018). Prediction and sensitivity analysis of compressive strength
in segregated lightweight concrete based on artificial neural net-
work using ultrasonic pulse velocity. Construction and Building
Materials, 189, 1173–1183. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbu​ildma​
t.2018.09.096.
Wu, Q. J., Wang, C., & Zhi, X. D. (2018). Experimental and simula-
tion studies of failure modes of GFRP-reinforced short steel tubes
under axially compressive loads. Engineering Mechanics, 35(8),
184–191. https:​ //doi.org/10.6052/j.issn.1000-4750.2017.05.0326.
Zurada, J. M. (1992). Introduction to artificial neural systems (Vol. 8):
West publishing company St. Paul.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
and Information Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin 150090, China
13