Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Data-driven shear strength prediction of steel fiber reinforced concrete

beams using machine learning approach
Jesika Rahman a, b, Khondaker Sakil Ahmed b, *, Nafiz Imtiaz Khan c, Kamrul Islam b, d,
Sujith Mangalathu e
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Lakehead University, Ontario, Canada
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh
c
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Military Institute of Science and Technology (MIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh
d
Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada
e
Data Analytics Division, Mangalathu, Mylamkulam, Kottarakara, Kollam, 691507, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The incorporation of steel fibers in a concrete mix enhances the shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams and
Steel fiber reinforced concrete a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon is imperative to have an accurate estimation in engineering
Shear strength designs. Although significant studies have been carried out on shear capacity estimation, mechanics-based
Big data
models are not yet available due to the complex underlying phenomenon. This paper presents a data-driven
Machine learning
Feature importance
approach to the shear strength of SFRC beams and incorporates the largest database compilation of 507
experimental data. Input features considered in this study are the ratio of shear span to effective depth, concrete
compressive strength, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, volume fraction, aspect ratio, and type of fiber. Eleven
machine learning (ML) models, namely linear regression, ridge regression, lasso regression, decision tree,
random forest, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, artificial neural network, XGBoost, AdaBoost, and
CatBoost, are evaluated to examine their shear strength estimation of SFRC beams. The XGBoost is resulting in
the most accurate predictions (85%) with the lowest root mean squared error and low mean absolute error. A
study on the importance of the input parameters reveals that shear span to effective depth ratio, longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, concrete strength, and volume fraction of fiber are the most influential parameters of shear
strength of SFRC.

of discontinuous fibers as a non-conventional mass reinforcement is

1. Introduction
Shear failure prevails as one of the most prominent failures that need
to be considered in the design of concrete beams. To avoid such cata­
strophic events, the beams are designed with transverse reinforcement
named stirrups. Often the code practice leads to a close placement of
these stirrups thereby arising difficulties in concrete pouring in between
the congested arrangement of reinforcement and hence risking good
bonding between them. Also, the use of stirrups is becoming expensive
since the cost of labor for arranging the transverse reinforcement is
increasing [1]. As a remedial measure, using high strength steel and
ultra-high strength concrete is promoted by many designers. Although
this allows the reduction of member size and reinforcement required, it
often causes the resulting concrete to become more brittle [2,3]. The use
proven to be promising as cracking of the fibrous concrete requires
pullout and debonding of the fibers in the concrete mix. The tensile
stress transfer capability (known as crack-bridging) of fibers allows
significant resistance to the development of cracks and helps in
demonstrating a pseudo-ductile tensile property and improved energy
dissipation capacity compared to that of a plain concrete [4,5]. The
replacement of common steel stirrups with fibers is seen to have a
notable potential, especially in design criteria recommending high
transverse steel ratio which ultimately would lead to shorter stirrup
spacing [6].
The incorporation of fiber in the concrete mix began about 100 years
ago and currently, four main types of fibers are being used in the
fabrication of concrete namely glass, natural, synthetic, and steel fibers
[7–13]. Due to durability issues, glass fibers were only used for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rahmanj@lakeheadu.ca (J. Rahman), drksa@ce.mist.ac.bd (K.S. Ahmed), kamrul.islam@polymtl.ca (K. Islam), sujithmss@gatech.edu
(S. Mangalathu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111743
Received 23 August 2020; Received in revised form 29 November 2020; Accepted 15 December 2020
Available online 21 February 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Rahman et al.
Nomenclature
AB AdaBoost
AAE Average Absolute Error
ANN Artificial Neural Network
ANFIS Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System
CB CatBoost
COV Coefficient of Variation
DT Decision Tree
KNN k-Nearest Neighbor
LR1 Linear Regression
LR2 Lasso Regression
MAE Mean Absolute Error
ML Machine Learning
architectural purposes [14]. In developing countries use of natural fibers
is prevalent due to its low cost [14]. Authors in the past have identified
that the addition of a small amount of synthetic fibers can affect posi­
tively, however, some say that these do not perform as well as the steel
fibers [14–16]. Equipped with the inherent property of resisting tensile
forces which is superior to that of concrete, the steel fiber has always
been an attractive choice to many designers. Thus, steel fiber reinforced
concrete (SFRC) is being studied worldwide as it is proved to improve
the performance of reinforced concrete members [17,18]. However, the
application of steel fibers is still in its infancy due to the lack of a
comprehensive understanding of the mechanism that involves concrete
and steel fibers in shear strength [1]. Steel fibers help in improving the
concrete compressive strength, durability, fatigue performance, resis­
tance to cracking, modulus of elasticity, and other properties as well
[14]. The steel fibers are proven to delay and reduce the crack width
hence the toughness and post-cracking tensile resistance are improved
[19,20]. The beneficial properties of steel fiber are noteworthy due to its
tensile response which acts as a prominent non-conventional rein­
forcement in the shear critical concrete beams under monotonic and
cyclic loadings [4,21]. The tensile response of fibrous materials in SFRC
may alter the brittle shear failure to a ductile flexural failure allowing
the concrete to have substantial residual strength and stiffness [22,23].
Researchers are also in line with this practice as they have found the
usefulness of steel fibers in providing satisfactory shear strength to the
beams without web reinforcement [24]. Apart from the ACI Building
Code [25], the utilizing of SFRC in structures is also permitted in the
German and Italian Guidelines [26,27]. However, the lack of proper
design guidelines in the codes is what prevents the confident use of steel
fibers in the casting of concrete.
To understand the behavior of SFRC beams in shear, several studies
have been done in the past and many have proposed empirical equations
to describe the performance of the SFRC beams in shear [28–42]. The
shear strength of SFRC beams is dependent upon several factors such as
the ratio of shear span to effective depth (a/d), concrete compressive
strength (fc´), the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement(ρ), fiber volume
fraction (Vf), the cross-section of the beam, the aspect ratio of the steel
fibers (lf/df) and fiber factor (F). Utilization of F aids in determining the
optimum content of steel fiber in shear-dominated fibrous beams to
provide adequate pre-set strength and ductility [43]. The fiber factor is
calculated from the aspect ratio, fiber volume fraction, and the bond
factor (ρf ) as shown in Eq. (1).
/ including boosting methods like XGBoost, AdaBoost, CatBoost, and
F = Vf lf df ρf (1)
The bond factor (ρf )used in Eq. (1) has different values depending on
the shape of the steel fibers used in SFRC beam casting (1, 0.95, 0.75,
and 0.5 for hooked, indented, crimped, and round or smooth, respec­
tively). Often the shear strength of SFRC is compromised due to the
2
Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743
R Correlation Coefficient
RF Random Forest
RR Ridge Regression
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
RRSE Root Relative Squared Error
SD Standard Deviation
SFRC Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
SVM Support Vector Machine
SVR Support Vector Regression
VAR Variance
XB XGBoost
χ Inversed slope of linear least square regression of the
predicted capacity versus experimental capacity.
segregation and balling of the fibers when these are not distributed
uniformly throughout the matrix. Some studies showed that the action
of steel fiber on the shear capacity of SFRC beams is independent [32]
whereas, others reported that it is rather coupled [24]. As far as the
literature reviewed, none of the equations are competent to predict the
shear capacity once they are used for results beyond those which were
used to validate the equations.
Recently there has been a significant thrust in the estimation of
complex underlying relationships through data-driven or machine
learning (ML) approaches [44–47]. Parmer et al. [48] studied the use of
the artificial neural network (ANN), adaptive neuro-fuzzy interface
system, and neuro-fuzzy-wavelet coupled model to predict river water
quality parameters and discovered that the third model gave more ac­
curate predictions than the ANN, neuro-fuzzy and regression models.
Yao et al. [49] found out that a two-class support vector machine (SVM)
provides better prediction accuracy than one-class SVM and logistic
regression in their study of mapping landslide susceptibility. Yan et al.
[50] used genetic algorithm combined with ANN to predict the bond
strength of glass fiber reinforced polymers bar reinforced concrete. A
study by Chopra et al. [51] highlighted the accuracy of models such as
decision trees, random forests, and neural networks to predict the
compressive strength of concrete. The authors of this study reported that
predictions by the neural network algorithm had the highest accuracy
followed by the random forest algorithm. In a study by Zhou et al. [52]
the shear capacity of grouted reinforced concrete block masonry walls
was predicted using ANN and ANFIS and concluded that these neural
network models perform better than empirical models. The ML is
extremely useful in refining metamodels and is very popular among the
researchers [53–56]. However, there arise two problems when AI is
implemented in modeling concrete and/or structural engineering ap­
plications: first is the most important step in any AI algorithm, the
problem of conversion of the input features to numerical data to be fed
to the technique, whereas the second problem is finding out the best
topology of this technique that assess the prediction problem [57].
About 13 trillion USD construction industry, as of today, are reluctant
about the implementation of AI techniques in construction and man­
agement works due to its excessive risk and cost factors [58]. Having
mentioned that, there are quite a few engineering applications of ML
such as modeling of cracks in bridges [59] and image segmentation for
detection of pavement defect using convolutional network and uncer­
tainty framework [60]. Mangalathu et al. [61] utilized eight ML models
LightGBM to identify the mode of seismic failure in reinforced concrete
shear walls. Further studies on the utilization of various ML models in
structural engineering aspects include recognition of failure mode of
circular reinforced concrete bridge columns [45], rapid prediction of
earthquake-induced building damage [62], failure mode classification
and to predict the shear strength of reinforced concrete beam-column
J. Rahman et al.
joints [63]. Such a vast reserve of quality findings from these past
literature serves to prove the immense power of ML algorithms in
structural engineering [64].
The subject of the shear strength attainment in SFRC beams without
stirrups is yet to be fully understood and therefore a more detailed
analysis is required. The previously proposed shear capacity prediction
equations are empirical and depend on the corresponding experimental
results and database derived from their paper. A study by Shahnewaz
and Alam [65] used a genetic algorithm and 358 data sets to propose two
separate equations to predict the shear strength of slender and deep
beams respectively. The authors also provided a design example where
they showed that when the fiber volume content increased, the stirrup
requirement decreased significantly. The authors extended their study in
[1] and used the same algorithm and the same number of data sets to
propose one improved equation to estimate the shear strength of SFRC
beams. The authors used five input features identified as significant for
target prediction by Meta-model of Optimal Prognosis. Slater et al. [7]
incorporated linear and non-linear regression to predict the shear ca­
pacity of SFRC beams using a database of 222 experimental data and
mentioned that the equation proposed using linear regression provided
higher accuracy of prediction. Shahnewaz et al. [66] identified that the
proposed equations developed using genetic algorithm and calibrated
using reliability analysis can provide good results in the prediction of
shear strength of SFRC beams. Hossain et al. [67] applied ANN for shear
strength prediction of SFRC beams using 139 data obtained from past
literature and then validated the model using 39 more experimental
data. The authors mentioned in their study that the ANN model can
provide high accuracy for high and ultra-high strength SFRC beams.
Sarveghadi et al. [68] proposed two equations for normal and high
strength concrete and one general equation from 208 data points for the
prediction of shear capacity using multi-expression programming.
Yaseen et al. [69] identified that the hybrid model: support vector
regression (SVR) coupled with Particle Swarm Optimization, is superior
to the Artificial Neural Network integrated with Particle Swarm Opti­
mization in predicting the shear strength of SFRC beams. Keshtegar et al.
[57] also studied hybrid model integrating response surface method and
SVR using 139 data sets and found that the model is superior to neural
network, and standalone response surface method and SVR models as
compared. Ahmadi et al. [70] developed shear prediction equations
utilizing Genetic Expression Programming and ANN models using 129
experimental data of SFRC beams having concrete compressive strength
greater than 17 MPa with only hooked and crimped steel fibers with a
maximum of 2% volume fraction.
It has been noted from the literature review that there is a critical
need for ML research in the shear strength estimation of SFRC. Such a
data-driven approach can lead to an open-source model for practical as
well as research use. Hence, the objectives of this study are:
(i). Development of a large experimental database of 507 tests con­
ducted on SFRC beams without web reinforcement. Such an
open-source database helps further researchers to adopt the data-
driven approaches for shear strength estimation.
(ii). Development of advanced physics-based ML methods such as
linear regression, ridge regression, lasso regression, support
vector regression, decision tree, random forest, artificial neural
network, k-nearest neighbors, XGBoost, AdaBoost, and CatBoost
to identify the superior algorithm that predicts the shear strength
of SFRC beams with the highest accuracy all while reducing the
time required for computation. The selection of these eleven ML
models is done based on their suitability with the database
accumulated in this paper. Also, the selection of the best machine
learning algorithm for the assembled database.
(iii). A comparison of models developed in this study with that by
previous publications to verify the functionality of the developed
algorithms.
3
Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743
The selected input parameters for the development of the ML models
include the ratio of shear span to effective depth (a/d), fiber volume
fraction (Vf), fiber aspect ratio (lf/df), type of steel fibers, longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (ρ), concrete compressive strength (fc´) and fiber
factor (F). The defined parameters are illustrated in Fig. 1.
2. Research significance
All the previously proposed empirical equations for the prediction of
shear capacity of both slender and deep SFRC beams are very conser­
vative as they are developed based on limited data. To develop better
models for shear strength prediction, several studies have developed
databases that are available in the public domains [1,7,65,67,70–72].
However, as additional experimental results are available, these data­
bases should be expanded. These studies are very limited in terms of
database and numbers of ML approaches and thus require more exten­
sive research. To propose an optimum design guideline against shear
and to reduce material cost as well as an adverse effect on the envi­
ronment, a more comprehensive database must be created to develop a
better model for shear strength prediction of the SFRC beams without
stirrups. This study intends to formulate an improved shear strength
prediction model that employs a large range of data accounting for all
the contributing factors. The incorporation of a 507 data set, the largest
so far in this field of research, will enhance the model prediction ca­
pacity as it consists of adequate diversity in shear strength experimental
results available in the literature. The present study, therefore, opens a
pathway for the effective use of steel fibers in designing reinforced
concrete beams commercially and thus promote the use of SFRC ele­
ments worldwide.
3. Database
The database comprises 507 experimental results of SFRC beams
assembled from 68 publications including journal papers, conference
proceedings, and technical reports. The SFRC beams adopted for this
database are cast with longitudinal reinforcement, normal to ultra-high-
strength concrete, and no shear or web reinforcement to ensure the
shear failure of the beams. It is to be noted that both slender and deep
beams were considered in this study where each beam was subjected to
static loading, as summarized in Table A1 (Appendix A). The type of
beams in this database are classified as 66% slender (a/d > 2.5) and 34%
deep (a/d ≤ 2.5) respectively. The primary difference between a slender
and a deep beam, apart from the a/d ratio, is the fact that while shear
deformation in slender beams can be ignored as it is negligible, the shear
deformation must be considered while designing deep beams [73].
Table 1 illustrates the structural property of the test samples consulted in
this study which comprises the geometric and material properties.
Upon the collection of the data points, several challenges were
encountered such as inadequate information and missing data. The
missing information in such papers are either calculated from given data
or assumed based upon the most commonly used criteria in commercial
applications.
3.1. Statistical summary of the data
The distributions of each of the properties deemed most responsible
for shear strength prediction as observed from the reference publications
are presented in Fig. 2. A summary of the type of fibers used is also
included. The statistical range of these parameters is evaluated as shown
in Table 2.
Crowding within the range of a/d = 2.5 to 3.5 can be seen in Fig. 2(a)
which implies that the mostly used shear span lies within this range. To
ensure the shear failure of the SFRC beams high longitudinal rein­
forcement needs to be employed which is evident from Fig. 2(b). Most of
the beam samples have 1.5% to 3.5% longitudinal reinforcement with
the highest and lowest ratios being 5.72% and 0.55% respectively. As
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Fig. 1. General description of the geometric properties of the SFRC beam.

3.2. Selection of input variables affecting shear strength of SFRC

Table 1
Geometric and material properties of the SFRC beams.
Designation Details
Beam bw Width of the sample cross-section
h Total height of the sample cross-section
d Effective depth of the beam sample section
a/d Ratio of shear span to effective depth of the
beam sample
ρ Longitudinal reinforcement ratio
Concrete ag Maximum aggregate size used in the SFRC
mix casting
fc´ Concrete compressive strength
Steel Fiber lf Length of the fiber
df Diameter of the fiber
lf /df Aspect ratio
Vf Fiber volume fraction
F Fiber factor
Fiber type Type of the steel fiber used in casting
Results Vuexp The sectional shear strength at failure as
obtained from the experiment
observed from Fig. 2(c), the data points are clustered around 35 MPa to
50 MPa denoting that majority of the test samples in the database are of
normal strength concrete with very few being high strength and ultra-
high strength concrete. Test samples having ag as 10 mm are seen to
have the highest frequency among the other test data collected (Fig. 2
(d)). This is justified as the most likely used aggregate in laboratory
purposes are the ones with a maximum size of 10 mm. On the other
hand, the presentation in Fig. 2(e) reveals that the highest number of test
records have a value of aspect ratio within 50 to 90. From the distri­
bution in Fig. 2(f) it is seen that the most used fiber volume fraction (Vf)
is between 0.4% and 1.6% as this range is also found to be suitable to
produce a workable mix of the SRFC [71].
As seen from Table A1 from Appendix A and Fig. 2(i), the types of
fiber used in the casting of SFRC beam specimens in the database con­
sists of hooked, crimped, straight smooth, round, a combination of
hooked and straight, flat, corrugated, recycled, mill cut, chopped with
butt ends and brass-coated high strength steel fibers. As expected,
hooked type fibers are adopted by 67% of the researchers. The next most
common type is the crimped type fiber at around 20% followed by
straight smooth fibers (3.94%). Maximum experiments showed a fiber
factor F below 80 with very few data points above 120, as seen from
Fig. 2(g). As mentioned earlier, the fiber factor is dependent on lf/df and
Vf and these factors affect the workability of the concrete mix. Fig. 2(h)
shows the distribution of the experimental shear capacity of the SFRC
beams specimens in the data collected.
The parameters selected for this study are followed by reviewing
Unit previous studies consisting of shear performance in SFRC beams. Slater
mm et al. [7] considered the following parameters to be responsible for the
mm shear capacity in SFRC beams: a/d, ρ, fc′ , lf/df, Vf and F. Shahnewaz and
mm
Alam [65] used 2k Factorial design approach to identify the most
important parameters as fc′ , ρ, a/d, lf/df, and Vf. The 2k factorial design is
–
% also followed by another paper by Shahnewaz et al. [66] where the most
mm important parameters identified were the a/d and ρ only. However, in
another paper by Shahnewaz and Alam [1] the important input features
MPa
were recognized using Meta-model Optimal Prognosis where it is found
mm
mm that the aspect ratio (lf/df) of the fibers do not play an important role in
– predicting shear capacities of SFRC beams. The input parameters in their
% study are confined to a/d, ρ, fc′ , and Vf. Yaseen et al [69] mentioned that
–
a/d, ρ, fc′ , lf/df, Vf, F, and d (effective depth) are important in terms of
–
MPa
shear strength prediction. On the other hand, Keshtegar et al. [57]
mentioned that ρ, fc′ , Vf, lf, and a show positive effects on the shear stress
while a/d and ag show negative effects respectively. Also, they identified
that the shear stress of SFRC beams is sensitive to Vf, a, fc′ , and a/d only.
These observations have led the authors in this study to use the input
parameters a/d, ρ, fc′ , lf/df, Vf, and F to predict the shear capacity of SFRC
beams as output. Additionally, the type of fibers is also considered as an
input variable to investigate the effect it has on the shear capacity of the
SFRC samples. The effect of each of the input parameters on the shear
capacity adopted for this study are analyzed in the subsequent section.
The impact of the size of aggregates are also investigated for compari­
son. A parametric study is done in this paper as attached in Appendix C.
4. Model development
For identification of the best model, this paper assessed several al­
gorithms namely, Linear regression (LR1), Random forest (RF), Ridge
regression (RR), Lasso regression (LR2), Decision trees (DT), Support
Vector Machines (SVM), k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Artificial Neural
Network (ANN), XGBoost (XB), AdaBoost (AB) and CatBoost (CB). For
the best output, 10-fold cross-validation is applied for all the models.
The models are analyzed using the seven input features as described in
the earlier sections. The models are developed using Scikit-learn [74], a
machine learning package in the Python programming language. The
Scikit-learn [74] package consists of a comprehensive library of machine
learning methods causing it to be a powerful tool-kit. Descriptions of the
ML methods studied in this paper is provided in this section. Fig. 3
briefly illustrates the methods adopted in this study.

4
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Fig. 2. Distribution of the geometric material and properties of the test beams (a) ratio of shear span to effective depth (a/d) (b) ratio of longitudinal reinforcement
(ρ) (c) concrete compressive strength (fc´) (d) maximum size of aggregate (ag) (e) fiber aspect ratio (lf/df) (f) fiber volume fraction (Vf) (g) fiber factor (F) (h)
experimental shear capacity (Vuexp) and (i) fiber type.

4.1. Linear regression as shown in Eq. (3).

[ ( )2 ]
Linear regression (LR1) is a supervised machine learning algorithm ∑N ∑m ∑m
̂
β ridge = argminβ yi − β0 − 2
Xij βj + λ j=1 βj (3)
that determines out a linear relationship between the dependent and i=1 j=1

independent variables [75]. In this method, regression coefficients are

assigned to explain the linear relation and the best choice of the Here, the number of input features are denoted by m whereas, sample
regression coefficients is made through gradient descent. Depending on numbers in the dataset are denoted by i. The shrinkage parameter is
the given input variables, also known as independent variables, the represented by λ and the coefficients (βj) tend to approach zero when the
target prediction value is modeled by this algorithm. A hyperplane is fit value of λ increases. The RR model has been developed by setting the
to the m-dimensional space where there are m number of independent value of regularization strength alpha as 0.01 and the rest of the other
features. The output (Y) of this algorithm represents the targeted vari­ hyper-parameters are kept as default from the Scikit-learn’s ridge
able (shear strength), which is shown in Eq. (2). The independent var­ regression function.
iables are denoted as Xj (j = 1,2,…m) and the regression coefficients are
denoted as βj (j = 1, 2,…m). By choosing the value of regression co­ 4.3. Lasso regression
efficients, the cost function, also known as root mean squared error
(RMSE), is minimized. Reducing this cost function value gives the best The lasso regression (LR2) performs feature selection and regulari­
fit line, which is achieved by using gradient descent and in that process, zation to improve the accuracy of the model [76]. Similar to RR, the
the best combination of regression coefficients get selected. To get the residual sum of squares is minimized by taking the regression co­
reduced value of the cost function, this process starts with random efficients as the sum of absolute values. As depicted in Eq. (4), the re­
values for θi, then repeatedly updates the values. sidual sum of squares is minimized by taking the regression coefficients
∑m as the sum of absolute values.
Y = β0 + j=1
Xj β j (2) [ ( )2 ]
∑N ∑m ∑m ⃒ ⃒
In this study, all the default hyper-parameters which are used to
̂
β lasso = argmin
β i=1
yi − β0 − Xij βj + λ
j=1
⃒β j ⃒
j=1
(4)
control the learning process of Scikit-learn’s linear regression function
has been used to develop the model with experimental data. The notations signify the same as described for Eq. (3). The RR model
has been developed by setting the value of alpha as 0.01 and the default
parameters of Scikit-learn’s ridge regression function have been used.
4.2. Ridge regression
4.4. Decision trees
The ridge regression (RR) is similar to LR1 except for the fact that it
reduces the model variance that is observed in LR1 [76]. To minimize The Decision Tree (DT) is a supervised ML algorithm which generates
the residual sum of squares, the coefficients are reduced in RR analysis a tree-like model from the training data. It resembles a flowchart where

5
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Fig. 2. (continued).

function defined by h as shown in Eq. (5). The default hyper-parameters

Table 2
of Scikit-learn’s decision tree function has been used for developing the
Statistical range of the parameters in the database.
DT model in this paper.
Parameter Minimum value Maximum value Mean Standard deviation
∑J
a/d 0.46 6.00 2.91 0.97 h(x) = j=1
bj 1{x∈Rj } (5)
ρ (%) 0.55 5.72 2.46 1.01
f’c (MPa) 9.77 215.00 49.21 25.03
lf /df 25.00 191.00 71.21 23.73
4.5. Random forest
Vf (%) 0.20 4.50 0.90 0.56
F 7.59 450.00 58.42 48.49
Vuexp (MPa) 0.60 13.95 3.69 2.17 The random forest (RF) is also a supervised ML method which is
comprised of a combination of multiple decision trees. The tree classi­
fiers are selected randomly from the given input features which are then
used to construct decision trees generated using the bootstrap method
from the training dataset with replacement [77]. The RF algorithm
each of the nodes represents the test on a feature and each branch de­
works in two stages: the RF is created in the first stage and prediction is
notes the outcome of the test. The response of the DT model is predicted
performed in the second stage based on the classifier created at the first
after following the decisions from the start node to the end node [77].
stage. There exists a positive relation between accuracy and the number
Depending on the splitting attribute, which is termed as a, feature space
of trees in the forest, meaning that by increasing the number of trees in
ℝm is partitioned recursively. The attribute is a binary variable that
the forest, more accurate results can be achieved. The best solution is
identifies that a = 1{xk >t} , for a threshold t where xk is either a numerical
achieved by voting. RF is considered better than a single decision tree as
or binary feature. To estimate the target output, each final region is it reduces the problem of overfitting. The final model predicted output is
assigned to a value. With Rj defined as the disjoint regions which are obtained by averaging the results of individual decision trees by
assigned to each leaves of the DT, the tree can be represented as a following Eq. (6) where each of the individual decision trees are denoted

6
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

(a) DT model (b) RF model (c) SVR model

(d) KNN model

(e) ANN model

(f) XB model (g) AB model

Fig. 3. Graphical representation of the ML algorithms adapted from [74,77,81–85].

7
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

by Yb , which is trained on X’ unknown instances. The symbol B in the Table 3

equation denotes the total number of the decision trees. Expressions to calculate the performance measures.
Name of the Notation Expression
1 ∑b
Y= Yb (X ’ ) (6) measure
B j=1
Coefficient of R2 [∑n
− y)(y’ − y’ )
]2
The working process of this algorithm begins with selecting a num­ determination R2 = ∑n i=1 (y
2 ∑n
Where y′ =
’ 2
ber for the samples and a decision tree is constructed for each of the i=1 (y − y) i=1 (y − y )
’

predicted value, y = actual value and n = number

samples. Next, each decision tree predicts the outcome from the given of samples
input parameters, and then for selecting the best one from all the pre­ Root mean RMSE
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
1∑n
dicted results, voting is performed. Finally, based on majority voting, the squared error RMSE = (y − y’ )2
n i=1
final prediction result is chosen. Approximately 1/3rd of the database is Mean absolute MAE
MAE =
1∑n
|y − y’ |
not selected during the bootstrap method of selection as this data is error n i=1
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Root relative RRSE ∑n ∑n
referred to as the out of bag data. This out of bag data is then used by the RRSE = ’ 2
i=1 (y − y ) / i=1 (y − y) × 100
2
squared error
trees to validate the states internally, thereby increasing accuracy and
improving the performance of the RF. The RF model has been developed
by taking 200 trees, referring to n_estimators in the forest. 4.9. XGBoost

The boosting methodologies applied in the current study combine

4.6. K-nearest neighbor
multiple weak learning models to develop a strong prediction model
[61]. XGBoost (XB) is a tree boosting system that scales beyond billions
Defined as a non-parametric and lazy algorithm, the k-nearest
of examples which makes this algorithm to perform very well on diverse
neighbor (KNN) can be used for classification as well as regression tasks.
datasets and gives the best results. The number of trees considered is set
In the (KNN) algorithm, the classifier picks k number of training points
to 100 and the learning rate as 0.16. The minimum loss reduction
close to a test data point x and predicts the outcome from these training
needed to make a further partition on a leaf node of each tree is set to
samples. To measure the distance between test and training data points,
zero. From the uniform sampling method, the value of the subsample
Euclidean distance metric is considered. After sorting the calculated
ratio is set to 0.75 whereas the subsample ratio of columns is set to 1.0.
distances in ascending order, the most frequent outcome from the first k
By setting the maximum depth of each tree to 7.0 and all other param­
rows is returned as the predicted result. The KNN model in this paper is
eters default, the XB model is developed in this study.
developed by setting k as 2 and other parameters as default by the Scikit-
learn.
4.10. AdaBoost

4.7. Support vector machines
The support vector regression (SVR) algorithm generates a model
using the training data to assign new data to a class by using hyper-plane
which is at a maximum distance from the labeled classes to minimize
generalization error. In this algorithm, the margin is calculated as the
sum of distances of the hyper-plane from the nearest point of labeled
classes. Radial Kernel function is utilized to map the lower-dimensional
data into higher ones. The SVR model is constructed by setting the de­
gree of the function as 3 and by keeping the value of the regularization
parameter as 21.
4.8. Artificial neural network
The artificial neural network (ANN) is a deep learning-based algo­
rithm that attempts to simulate the human brain and nervous system
[78]. Its processing elements are neurons that connect to form a network
and each of the processing elements may have many inputs while
sending only one output. When the input fed to processing elements
exceeds the threshold, the processing element then sends input to its
neighboring elements. The strength of the connection between pro­
cessing elements is ensured by assigning weights to them the values of
which are determined using the training data. The algorithm adjusts the
weights so that the difference between the predicted value and the
targeted value can be minimized. The hidden layer of the network,
located in the midst of the input and output, does this work by per­
forming nonlinear transformations on the inputs as fed to the network.
This study used a total of 500 iterations and other parameters are kept as
default to develop the ANN model.
AdaBoost (AB) is short for Adaptive Boosting where a strong pre­
diction model is developed by combining other weak learning algo­
rithms [79]. The weighted sum of the combination is the output of the
AB model. However, the final prediction model can only be proven to be
strong by this algorithm when the performance of each weak learner is
relatively better than random guessing. The AB model was built by
setting the value of the number of trees to be considered (n_estimators)
as 100 and other parameters kept as default.
4.11. CatBoost
CatBoost (CB) is a gradient boosting based ensemble ML algorithm
where dynamic boosting is applied to avoid overfitting [80]. This al­
gorithm is very powerful in classification and regression tasks where the
number of data samples is large. Moreover, it is capable of handling
biases with a dynamic boosting scheme. This helps the algorithm to
remove overfitting, hence the quality of the CB model is improved
significantly. The CB model has been developed in this study by iterating
through the whole data 700 times when the value of learning rate is set
to 0.03 and bagging temperature kept as 0.2.
The cross-fold validation is a measure of predictive accuracy that
minimizes the bias associated with randomly selected learning and test
data by using k-fold cross-validation algorithm, and 10-fold cross-
validation is adopted in this study following Kohavi Analysis Results.
All of the machine learning models are applied using a random test-
train split of the database. The division is maintained to 80% (406
samples) for the training subset and 20% (101 samples) for the testing
subset. The input features are converted to logarithmic space for all the
models to reduce the scatteredness of data and aid in the

8
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Table 4
Performance measure of the developed models.
Model Training data Testing data
2 2
RMSE R Adjusted R MAE RMSE R2 Adjusted R2 MAE

XB 0.099 0.998 0.998 0.058 1.346 0.739 0.722 0.704

RF 0.301 0.978 0.977 0.207 1.370 0.729 0.712 0.769
SVR 0.603 0.910 0.909 0.383 1.454 0.695 0.676 0.843
ANN 0.965 0.770 0.766 0.698 1.352 0.736 0.720 0.872
DT 0.089 0.998 0.998 0.029 1.410 0.713 0.695 0.880
AB 0.824 0.832 0.830 0.679 1.536 0.660 0.638 0.994
KNN 0.560 0.922 0.921 0.363 1.485 0.682 0.662 0.859
LR1 1.021 0.742 0.737 0.755 1.384 0.724 0.703 0.930
RR 1.021 0.742 0.738 0.755 1.384 0.723 0.706 0.931
LR2 1.021 0.742 0.738 0.755 1.384 0.724 0.706 0.930
CB 0.193 0.991 0.991 0.150 1.428 0.706 0.684 0.811

Fig. 4. Comparison between actual and predicted results from proposed models (a) ANN (b) KNN (c) LR1 (d) RF (e) SVR (f) LR2 (g) RR (h) DT (i) XB (j) AB (k) CB.

9
J. Rahman et al.
Fig. 4. (continued).
homoscedasticity assumption.
Performance evaluation of each of the method is done by calculating
the measures such as coefficient of determination (R2), adjusted R2, root
mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). The R2
shows how well the proposed formulation can estimate the experi­
mented data. The RMSE is also termed as the cost function that plays an
active part in the learning process of an ML algorithm. The values of
RMSE and MAE both quantify the accuracy and goodness of fit. The
expressions used to determine each of these measures are summarized in
Table 3. A good predictor model is indicated by lower values of RMSE
and MAE are and closer to the R2 value reaches to 1.00. The performance
measures for both train and test sets as evaluated using 80%-20% as the
train-test split of the whole database as presented in Table 4. The cross-
validation is performed on the same training data that is used for eval­
uating the measures in Table 4.
4.12. Performance measures
Statically, a model having a high value of R2 and correspondingly
10
Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743
low values of error measures is considered to have a high performance.
From Table 4 it is observed that the value of R2 obtained from the
training set in XB model is the highest (0.998) with MAE and RMSE
values of 0.058 and 0.099 respectively. Similarly, the results of R2,
RMSE, and MAE from the test set in XB model are 0.722, 1.346, and
0.704 respectively. Such results show that there is a strong correlation
between the observed and predicted shear capacities. The next highest
value of R2 is obtained from the RF model (0.978 for the train set and
0.729 for the test set) with RMSE values of 0.301 and 1.370 for train and
test respectively; MAE values of 0.207 and 0.769 for train and test sets
respectively. These observations led to the inference that the XB model
developed is superior to the other models developed in this study in
terms of prediction accuracy. The poorest performance is observed from
the RR model having the lowest value of R2 of 0.742 and correspond­
ingly the highest value of MAE with 0.931. The comparison of results
attained experimentally with that obtained from the eleven models
formulated in this study is presented in Fig. 4(a) to (k).
J. Rahman et al.
Fig. 4. (continued).
4.13. Cross-validation accuracy
Fig. 5 (a) and (b) are box-plots presenting the 10-fold cross-
validation accuracy of the training subset and that of the testing set
respectively. The box on the figures shows the interquartile range with
the median value shown as the horizontal line in the middle. The upper
and lower whiskers show 1.5 times exceeding the difference between
first and third quartiles respectively. The diamond marks on both of
these box and whisker plots indicate potential outliers. The individual
cross-validation training accuracy ranges between 53.40% and 92.70%.
The average accuracy of all the models in Fig. 5(a) ranges from 71.22%
to 84.65% and that found from Fig. 5(b) is between 38.55% and 70.30%.
The best performance as shown by these box and whiskers plots is given
by the XB followed by the RF model. The DT model has the largest
dispersion among all the developed algorithms across the 10-folds. The
models LR1, RR, and LR2 show the least accuracy (average training ac­
curacy of 71.22%). On the other hand, DT model shows the least cross-
validation accuracy in testing.
11
Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743
4.14. Results of the relative importance of the input features
The relative importance of each of the input parameters in proposed
DT, RF, AB, CB, and XB models are presented in Fig. 6(a) to (e). It is to be
noted that all the relative importance values indicated in the figures add
up to 100. It is observed that the most important feature is a/d in pre­
dicting the shear capacity of the SFRC beams followed by ρ. Interest­
ingly, it is seen from Fig. 6(e) that the type of fiber is the least important
feature for the XB model. On the other hand, the type of fiber is found to
be more important than lf/df, Vf, and F in the CB model. The sensitivity
analysis performed by Shahnewaz and Alam [1] provided similar ob­
servations. For instance, from the study of Meta-model of Optimal
Prognosis to identify the important parameters, Shahnewaz and Alam
[1] proved that the a/d was the most important input feature. The sec­
ond most important input parameter found from their study [1] is the
ratio of longitudinal reinforcement. However, according to the model
proposed by the authors, the least important parameter by the Meta-
model of Optimal Prognosis is the concrete compressive strength.
J. Rahman et al.
Fig. 4. (continued).
Fig. 5. Cross-validation performance by all the models in (a) training data (b) testing data.
5. Comparison among previous equations
In this section, the shear capacities as available from the database are
compared to those calculated from equations proposed by previous
studies. Results obtained from the proposed models are also compared
with the experimental results from the database to validate the perfor­
mance of the developed models in this study. A total of six equations
proposed by Ashour et al. [34], Khuntia et al. [86], Sharma [28], Sar­
veghadi et al. [68], and Shahnewaz and Alam [1] are used for the
objective of the comparison. The equations given by the authors for
shear strength prediction are shown in Table 5. Fig. 7 illustrates the
comparison between shear capacities of the SFRC beams obtained from
experiments and those from the prediction formula. A statistical sum­
mary is shown in Table 6 to signify the preciseness of each of the pro­
posed equations. The ideal condition is considered when there is a
smaller standard deviation with χ factor close to 1.00. A χ value greater
12
Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743
than 1.00 means the formulation underpredicts, whereas a χ value
<1.00 indicate that the model overpredicts shear capacity. Also, the
smallest value of AAE indicates that the developed model has attained a
satisfactory level of accuracy.
Two sets of equations are proposed by Ashour et al. [34] basing on
linear regression of the experimental data as obtained from 18 SFRC
beam specimens of high strength. The fiber factor (F), an important term
to incorporate the effect of size and shape of the steel fibers, has been
integrated into their first equation which is derived from the shear
equation in the ACI Building Code [25]. Their equation also included the
shear span to effective depth (a/d) ratio to account for the contribution
of reinforcement and concrete in the shear capacity. The second equa­
tion by Ashour et al. [34] is developed using a modified version of
Zsutty’s equation [87] where the fiber factor is incorporated. The second
equation is a set of two, accounting for separate expressions for deep
beams (a/d < 2.5) and slender beams (a/d ≥ 2.5). The equation by
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

(a) (b)

Proposed DT model Proposed RF model

(c) (d)

Proposed CB model
Proposed AB model

(e)

Proposed XB model
Fig. 6. The relative importance of input features affecting the shear capacity of SFRC beams.

13
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Table 5
Previous shear capacity equations for SFRC beams.
Authors a/d ratio Shear Equations
√̅̅̅̅̅
Ashour et al. [34]-1st [( ) ] (7)
Vu = 0.7 fc ’ + 7F d/a +17.2ρd/a
[( √̅̅̅̅̅ ]
Ashour et al. [34]-2nd a/d≥ 2.5 ) (8)
Vu = 2.11 fc ’ + 7F (ρd/a)0.333
3

[(( √̅̅̅̅̅ ) ]
a/d< 2.5 (9)
Vu = 2.11 fc ’ + 7F)(ρd/a)0.333 2.5d/a +υb (2.5 − a/d)
3

√ ̅̅̅̅̅
Khuntia et al. [86] a/d≤ 2.5 [( ] (10)
Vu = 0.167(2.5d/a) + 0.25F) fc ’
√ ̅̅̅̅̅
a/d>2.5 [( ] (11)
Vu = 0.167 + 0.25F) fc ’
[ √̅̅̅̅̅ ( )0.25 ]
Sharma [28] 2 d (12)
Vu = × 0.8 fc ’
[3 ( a ( ) ) ]
Sarveghadi et al. [68] ρ 3 (13)
Vu = ρ + +d/a ρft ’ (ρ + 2) ft ’ a/d − (d/a) + ft ’ +υb
υb υb
υb = 1.7015*F (14)
√̅̅̅̅̅
(15)
ft ’
= 0.79* fc ’
[ ]
Shahnewaz and Alam [1] Vu = 3.2 + 0.072fc ’ + ρVf [1.26 − 0.25a/d] − a/d 1.92 +0.017fc ’ − 0.38a/d (16)

Khuntia et al. [86] is also a modified version of the ACI Building Code
[25] equation of shear capacity where the effect of fiber is integrated.
Khuntia et al. [86] considered the post cracking tensile properties of
fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) to derive the equation which was then
validated using their experimental results of 68 SFRC beam specimens.
Sharma [28] proposed an equation that ignores some of the prime fac­
tors such as lf/df and F that contribute significantly in the shear capacity
of SFRC beams. The equation, however, is validated using 41 experi­
mental results performed by the author. The formula by Sarveghadi
et al. [68] is proposed by multi-expression programming after analyzing
a database of 208 test results of SFRC beams by previous studies. The
authors have developed two different sets of equations; one set incor­
porating different expressions for high strength and normal strength
concrete, the second set, on other hand, is a combined expression for
these two types of concrete. The recent publication by Shahnewaz and
Alam [1] presented a shear strength prediction equation using 358 tests
of SFRC beams from past literature. It is noteworthy to mention that,
both these studies [1,68], despite being very recent, have a narrow range
of data available for training and testing which caused the models to
have a limited applicability.
As seen from Fig. 7, all the values of the χ factor are greater than 1.00
which means that all the equations underpredict the shear capacity of
the SFRC beams. The reason can be attributed to the fact that the studied
expressions from the previous literature were developed based on a
narrow range of data having a limited diversification in specimen re­
sults. Also, due to neglecting important parameters that contribute to the
shear strength of SFRC, the expressions developed in the literature
reviewed in this section predicted less shear capacity than actual.
Among the previously proposed formulations studied so far, the equa­
tions formulated by Ashour et al. [34]-1st and Sarveghadi et al. [68] give
the most accurate predictions signified by the χ factors which are very
close to the value of 1.00 as given by equations (7) and (12) respectively.
The χ value from the equation developed by Sarveghadi et al. [68] is
found to be the closest to 1.00 (1.06) with a COV of 30% and VAR of
0.09. The equations proposed by Khuntia et al. [86] and Sharma [28]
show the poorest performance as signified by the highest χ values (1.63
and 1.57 respectively) and also high AAE values of 37% and 30%
respectively. The highest COV value of 39% is found from the equation
by Sharma [28] which indicates that the plot of predicted vs experi­
mental shear capacity has a high scatter (Fig. 7(d)). It is noteworthy to
mention that the χ factor reported by Shahnewaz and Alam [1] is 1.05 as
opposed to the χ factor of 1.10 found in this study. This difference in χ
value provides the fact that the proposed equation by Shahnewaz and
Alam [1] is based on a smaller and range of data. The AAE value found
from the results of their formulation [1] is the lowest among the other
formulations by past literature. Despite this observation, due to limited
experimental data and lack of new results from current research and
publications, predicted capacity from Eq. (15) causes the χ value to be
higher than that obtained from equations proposed by Ashour et al. [34]
and Sarveghadi et al. [68].
Fig. 7 and Table 6 provide good support to prove the superiority of
the developed XB model in the current study. In Fig. 7(g), the model
developed using XB algorithm shows a χ value of 1.02 and the corre­
sponding values of SD, COV, and AAE of 0.10, 10%, and 5% respectively,
which are the lowest among the models developed in this study. When
compared with the equations proposed by previous researchers, it is
seen that the proposed XB model outperformed those by Ashour et al.
[34]’s 1st equation and Sarveghadi [68]. Upon comparing Fig. 7(a), (e),
and (g), it is seen that the data points obtained from Ashour et al. [34]’s
1st equation are more scattered and those found from the XB model flock
close to the ideal 45⁰ line. Therefore, it is safe to say that the proposed
model using the XB algorithm outperformed all the other ML methods
developed in this study as well as the models reviewed in the available
literature.
6. Conclusion
This study presents 11 machine learning-based approaches to predict
the shear capacity of SFRC beams without web reinforcement. Based on
the database of experimental tests of 507 SFRC beams, this paper
developed models using Linear regression (LR1), Random forest (RF),
Ridge regression (RR), Lasso regression (LR2), Decision trees (DT),
Support Vector Machines (SVM), k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Artificial
Neural Network (ANN), XGBoost (XB), AdaBoost (AB) and CatBoost
(CB). The input parameters considered for the prediction of shear
strength are shear span to effective depth ratio, concrete compressive
strength, fiber aspect ratio, fiber volume fraction, fiber factor, longitu­
dinal reinforcement ratio, and type of fiber. For the robustness of output
and to minimize overfitting of the test data, 10-fold cross-validation is
performed for all the models. This paper also analyzed the currently
available shear strength prediction equations from previous literature
and identifies the gaps and future research prospects. The findings of the
present study can be concluded as:
• A comparative study between experimental and predicted shear
strength by previously proposed equations revealed that their pre­
dicted results have high variance and do not apply to a wide range of
data.
• All the equations show a value of the χ factor greater than 1.00 from
where it can be inferred that all the proposed equations under-
predict the experimental shear capacity of the SFRC beams in the
database.
• The XGBoost algorithm outperformed the rest of the developed
models in this paper as discussed by the high coefficient of

14
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Shear equation by Ashour et al. [34]-1st Shear equation by Ashour et al. [34] 2nd

Shear equation by Khuntia et al. [86] Shear equation by Sharma [28]

Shear equation by Sarveghadi et al. [68] Shear equation by Shahnewaz and Alam [1]

Proposed XB Model

Fig. 7. Scatter plot of the proposed and compared models for shear capacity prediction of the SFRC beams.

15
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Table 6 random forest model is found to give the second-best performance.

Statistical measures of the proposed equations. Other methods such as AB and CB are also showing good perfor­
Shear strength prediction models χ Vuexp/Vupred mance. The decision tree model is seen to give the poorest prediction.
• The relative feature importance applied to the input features
SD VAR COV (%) AAE (%)
employed in all the algorithms revealed that the most important
Ashour et al. [34]-1st 1.03 0.38 0.15 36 31 feature in shear capacity prediction is the ratio of shear span to
Ashour et al. [34]-2nd 1.21 0.38 0.15 29 30
Khuntia et al. [86] 1.63 0.52 0.27 33 37
effective depth followed by the ratio of longitudinal reinforcement
Sharma [28] 1.57 0.48 0.23 39 30 and concrete strength.
Sarveghadi et al. [68] 1.06 0.30 0.09 30 26 • In this study, the volume fraction of fiber along with the type of fiber
Shahnewaz and Alam [1] 1.10 0.29 0.08 27 23 was considered as an input parameter to obtain the target output. It is
Proposed XB 1.02 0.10 0.01 10 5
found that both parameters have a significant influence on the shear
Note: χ = inversed slope of linear least square regression of the predicted ca­ capacity of the SFRC beam.
pacity (Vupred) versus experimental capacity (Vuexp), SD = standard deviation, • The design example shown in Appendix B provides evidence that
VAR = variance, COV = coefficient of variation and AAE = average absolute increasing the amount of fiber and aspect ratio reduces the stirrup
error. requirement. It is seen that using only 0.5% of fiber allows the use of
minimum stirrups. Also, at 1.00% fiber volume fraction at 150 aspect
ratio requires no stirrup in the design of the SFRC beam.
Table 7
Stirrup requirement with variation of steel fibers.
In summary, this research brings forward a refined approach to
lf/ Vf Shear capacity from XB Total shear, Spacing, s
determine and predict the shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams
df model (MPa) *Vc+f(N) (mm)
where the conventional steel stirrup is replaced by incorporating steel
– – 0.660 74,226 113 fibers into the mix design. By adopting the models developed in this
50 0.50 2.060 232,827 267
paper, the structural design community can effectively overcome the
100 0.50 2.400 271,232 438
150 0.50 2.646 299,118 822 severe issues regarding the brittle shear failure of structural members.
50 0.75 2.174 245,705 307 The successful implementation of this study will encourage the engi­
100 0.75 2.761 312,086 1387 neers to avoid labor-intensive as well as expensive construction and
150 0.75 2.824 319,237 2236
retrofit methods.
50 1.00 2.149 242,887 297
100 1.00 2.848 321,909 2898
150 1.00 2.935 331,696 No stirrups
Declaration of Competing Interest
*Note: Total shear capacity of concrete and fiber = shear capacity from XB
model × bw× d. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
determination, low error measures, and a χ factor close to unity. The the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1
Database of experimental results from past literature of SFRC beams without transverse stirrups failing in shear.
Ref # of tests f’c (MPa) ρ (%) a/d lf/df Vf (%) Fiber type

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

[31] 32 25 65 2.67 2.67 3.49 3.49 50 85 0.50 1.50 Hooked, crimped

[32] 28 31 54 2.05 5.72 202 3.52 100 133 0.25 2.00 Crimped
[34] 18 92 101 2.83 4.58 1.00 6.00 75 75 0.50 1.50 Hooked
[33] 05 33 36 1.67 1.67 1.50 2.5 60 60 0.50 1.50 Hooked
[88] 04 110 112 3.08 3.08 1.75 4.50 75 75 0.75 0.75 Hooked
[36] 09 31 69 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 63 63 1.00 1.00 Hooked
[37] 20 24 89 1.32 2.82 1.43 1.43 60 60 0.50 2.00 Hooked
[38] 20 27 48 1.03 3.55 1.54 4.04 45 80 0.25 0.75 Hooked
[39] 04 41 43 1.91 1.91 2.00 2.80 60 60 1.00 2.00 Hooked
[40] 10 31 49 1.97 2.71 3.40 3.50 60 80 1.00 1.50 Hooked
[89] 04 24 33 1.16 1.95 2.30 3.45 80 80 0.50 1.25 Hooked
[90] 06 82 84 1.28 1.28 1.50 2.50 80 80 0.50 1.50 Hooked
[91] 09 10 34 1.34 1.34 2.50 4.50 55 55 1.00 3.00 Hooked
[92] 19 38 48 1.15 3.56 1.50 4.00 67 67 0.25 0.76 Hooked
[93] 03 35 35 1.85 1.85 1.59 2.95 80 80 0.75 0.75 Hooked
[94] 07 21 21 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.80 25 100 1.00 1.00 Straight smooth, brass-coated high strength steel
[95] 06 80 80 3.59 3.59 2.00 4.50 100 100 0.50 1.00 Straight smooth
[96] 04 33 34 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 100 100 1.00 2.00 Hooked
[97] 06 32 39 2.37 2.37 0.81 2.41 100 100 3.00 4.50 Brass-coated high strength steel
[14] 07 36 88 3.43 4.78 3.00 3.14 60 60 0.50 2.00 Hooked
[98] 02 80 80 1.91 1.91 2.00 2.80 55 55 1.00 1.00 Hooked
[26] 04 50 55 1.52 2.28 3.77 3.81 55 80 0.50 1.00 Hooked
[99] 09 60 64 1.16 1.16 2.22 2.22 65 80 0.50 1.00 Hooked
[100] 02 34 36 1.98 1.98 2.80 2.80 67 67 0.32 0.69 Hooked
(continued on next page)

16
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Table A1 (continued )
Ref # of tests f’c (MPa) ρ (%) a/d lf/df Vf (%) Fiber type

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

[101] 02 59 59 3.08 3.08 2.50 2.50 65 65 1.00 2.00 Hooked

[102] 03 38 90 1.06 3.49 2.89 3.81 6 75 1.25 1.25 Hooked
[26] 04 20 21 1.17 1.50 2.97 3.09 55 55 0.50 1.00 Hooked
[103] 09 24 61 1.00 1.00 2.50 2.51 48 78 0.25 0.64 Hooked and straight
[104] 02 39 42 3.09 3.09 3.08 3.08 60 60 1.00 2.00 Straight smooth
[105] 21 29 51 1.52 2.63 3.44 3.50 55 80 0.75 1.50 Hooked
[106] 01 90 90 3.49 3.49 2.89 2.89 60 60 1.25 1.25 Hooked
[107] 07 34 34 1.20 2.39 1.50 3.50 60 60 0.50 1.00 Hooked
[108] 09 21 33 1.36 2.04 2.00 3.60 60 60 0.50 0.75 Hooked
[29] 10 29 50 2.47 2.86 3.45 3.61 67 67 0.75 0.75 Hooked
[109] 02 40 40 1.13 3.33 2.55 2.77 80 80 0.38 0.38 Hooked
[110] 05 36 41 3.05 4.01 4.50 4.50 100 100 0.40 1.20 Crimped
[111] 06 132 154 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 75 75 1.00 2.00 Straight smooth
[112] 02 120 121 5.61 5.61 2.86 2.86 65 65 0.80 1.60 Hooked
[113] 02 21 56 1.72 1.72 4.00 4.00 60 60 0.75 0.75 Hooked
[28] 01 49 49 1.46 1.46 1.81 1.81 85 85 0.96 0.96 Hooked
[114] 11 31 56 3.55 3.55 0.46 0.93 100 100 0.25 1.25 Crimped
[115] 22 23 63 1.10 3.30 1.00 3.00 29 100 1.00 2.00 Crimped, hooked
[116] 06 41 57 2.14 2.14 1.63 1.63 60 60 0.40 1.50 Hooked
[117] 04 34 37 2.52 2.52 2.00 2.00 35 35 0.50 2.00 Mill cut
[118] 11 36 37 0.64 1.12 0.90 2.50 63 63 0.50 0.75 Hooked
[119] 07 49 55 1.66 1.66 3.52 3.52 127 191 0.50 2.00 Hooked
[120] 02 109 111 3.48 3.48 2.75 2.75 64 67 0.75 0.75 Hooked
[121] 02 40 41 1.71 1.71 2.99 2.99 50 50 1.00 1.50 Hooked
[122] 02 30 30 1.45 1.45 1.80 1.80 80 80 0.50 0.50 Hooked
[123] 03 62 62 3.22 3.43 3.21 3.26 65 65 0.75 0.75 Hooked
[124] 03 50 50 1.55 3.32 2.56 2.56 58 58 0.77 0.77 Recycled
[125] 02 23 41 2.50 4.03 3.00 3.00 55 55 1.00 1.00 Hooked
[126] 09 23 80 1.44 4.03 3.00 3.00 55 55 1.00 1.00 Hooked
[127] 02 199 215 3.60 3.60 2.00 3.50 55 55 2.00 2.00 Hooked
[128] 03 32 32 1.26 1.26 1.13 1.13 50 50 0.20 0.60 Corrugated
[129] 01 28 28 0.55 0.55 2.00 2.00 75 75 0.50 0.50 Hooked
[26] 01 59 59 1.52 1.52 3.77 3.77 55 55 0.50 0.50 Hooked
[130] 19 39 93 2.87 4.47 2.77 3.33 40 86 0.50 1.00 Straight smooth; hooked and straight; hooked
[16] 09 38 54 1.78 1.78 3.02 3.02 43 50 0.50 1.00 Hooked, flat
[131] 43 33 40 3.09 3.09 1.00 5.00 46 102 0.22 0.76 Flat, crimped, round
[132] 02 42 44 1.02 1.02 3.70 3.70 60 60 0.50 1.00 Hooked
[133] 04 35 73 1.46 1.46 3.00 3.00 65 67 0.75 0.75 Hooked
[134] 03 33 35 1.00 1.00 3.76 3.76 80 80 1.00 1.50 Hooked
[135] 08 28 33 4.02 4.02 2.85 2.85 80 80 0.30 1.20 Hooked
[15] 03 41 46 3.30 3.30 3.00 3.00 80 80 0.50 1.50 Hooked
[136] 01 56 56 4.93 4.93 1.96 1.96 47 47 1.00 1.00 Chopped with butt ends

Appendix B

Design example for a beam with steel fibers, adopted from Nilson et al. [137]
A simply supported rectangular beam with 254 mm (10 in.) width and an effective depth of 445 mm (17.5 in.) is applied 108.64 kN/m (7.44 kip/ft)
factored uniform load on a span of 4.572 m (15 ft.). It is designed with 1935.48 mm2 (3.00 in2) longitudinal steel that continues uninterrupted into the
supports. If fc′ = 27.6 MPa (4000 psi) and fy = 413.8 MPa (60000 psi).
a) Find the spacing for steel shear reinforcements with No. 10 (No. 3) bars and b) steel shear reinforcement of the beam with steel fibers.
a) Design for steel stirrups:
The factored shear at support, Vu = 248,198.4 N (55.8 kip)
Shear contribution from concrete,
√̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ϕλ f ’c bw d
ϕVc = 6 = 0.75×1× 27.6
6
×254×445
= 74,226.38 N = 74.22kN (16.68 kip)
The rest of the shear will be supported by stirrups, ϕVs = Vu − ϕVc
Spacing of the stirrups,
ϕA f d ϕAv fy d
s = Vu − vϕV
y
c
= ϕVs = 0.75×142×413.8×445
248198.4− 74226.38 = 112.73 mm (4.43 in.)
b) Using steel fiber,
In order to investigate how the stirrup requirement changes with increasing fiber content, Vf
Assuming the aspect ratio varying from 50 to 150
Stirrup spacing calculation after considering the contribution of both concrete and fiber,
Vc+f is taken from the XB model developed in this paper.
ϕAv fy d ϕAv fy d
s = Vu −ϕVc+f = ϕVs
Maximum spacing, smax = d/2 = 222.3 mm (8.75 in.)
In simply supported beams with uniform loading conditions, the ratio of shear span to effective depth, a/d is calculated as l/4
d [65].
Therefore, a/d = 2.57.
The spacing of stirrups calculation is tabulated below:

17
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

From Table 7 it is seen that using only 0.5% steel fiber increases the stirrup spacing significantly. The shear capacity increased with an increase in
aspect ratio and fiber volume fraction. It is seen that the stirrup spacing is 267 mm at an lf/df and Vf values of 50 and 0.5 respectively. The maximum
spacing permitted by the ACI Building Code [25] is 222.3 mm as calculated above. Therefore, using 0.5% steel fibers could allow for the use of
minimum stirrups all through the beam sample. Also, it is seen that no stirrups are needed in the beam to provide adequate shear strength at 1.00%
fiber content with 150 aspect ratio.
The use of fiber enhances both flexural and shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure that the shear capacity
exceeds the flexural capacity so that a ductile failure occurs.

Flexural capacity of the section (without stirrup)

As reported by Henager and Doherty [138], the flexural capacity of steel fiber concrete reinforced with only longitudinal reinforcements is
calculated by the following formula:
( )
h e a
Mr = As fy (d − a/2) + σ t b(h − e) + −
2 2 2
e = distance between the top of tensile stress block to the extreme compression fiber of fibrous concrete
a = depth of rectangular stress block
σ t = 1.12(lf /df)ρfFbe
ρf = volume of fiber
Fbe = fiber bond efficiency
Af 1935.48×413.8
a = 0.85f
s y
’b = 0.85×27.6×254 = 134.41 mm (5.29 in.)
c

c = a/β1 = 134.41/0.85 = 158.13 mm (6.23 in.)

σ t = 1.12(lf/df) ρf Fbe = 1.12 × 150 × 0.01 × 1.0 = 1.68 MPa (244 psi)
e = [εs (fibers)+0.003
0.003
]c
= 159mm(6.27in.)
( )
h e a
Mr = As fy (d − a/2) + σ t b(h − e) + −
2 2 2
= 1935.48 × 413.8 × (445 − 134.41/2) + 1.68 × 254 × (500 − 159) × (500/2 + 159/2 − 134.41/2)
= 340.74 kN-m (251.32 kip-ft)
Mf = 283.76 kN-m (209.3kip-ft) < ϕMr = 306.67 kN-m (226.20 kip-ft)

Ductile failure check (without web reinforcement)

The point load calculated from flexural resistance, Mr

Pflexure = 340.74×3
6 = 170.37 kN (38.30 kip)
Shear load the beam can resist without web reinforcement,
Pshear = 331.70 kN (74.57 kip)
The shear capacity of the SFRC beam is therefore greater than its flexural capacity, so its ductile failure is ensured.

Appendix C. Parametric study

C.1. Shear span to depth ratio

The shear strength of SFRC beams in the database is seen to decrease as the value of the corresponding a/d increased as depicted in Fig. 8(a). This
observation is in line with those observed by Narayan and Dharwish [32] who also pointed out that the shear strength reduced exponentially with an
increase in a/d. According to Shahnewaz and Alam [1], the arching action between the supports and loading points is responsible for this behavior in
SFRC beams.

C.2. Longitudinal reinforcement ratio

Fig. 8(b) shows that the shear capacity improved as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is increased. However, when the reinforcement ratio is
more than 3.55% it no longer has a significant effect on increasing the shear capacity. Similar behavior is also reported by Swamy and Bahia [110]. The
dowel action capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement in lower ratios contributes to improving the shear strength [115].

C.3. Concrete compressive strength

The shear strength is seen to increase with fc′ as observed from the scatter plot in Fig. 8(c). This parameter is regarded as one of the most important
parameters in predicting the shear capacity of SFRC beams [1,86]. It is reported by researchers that the shear capacity increased by 10.7% when the
concrete compressive strength increased by 44.5% [139]. Khuntia et al [86] mentioned that the shear capacity enhanced exponentially with fc′
whereas the results shown by Shahnewaz and Alam [1] had a linear trend in increment. On the other hand, a study by Londhe [140] reported that fc′
had a negligible effect on the shear capacity of deep beams.

18
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

Fig. 8. Variation in shear capacity of SFRC beams with respect to (a) shear span to effective depth ratio (a/d), (b) longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρ), (c) concrete
compressive strength (fc´), (d) fiber aspect ratio (lf/df), (e) fiber volume fraction (Vf), (f) fiber factor (F) and (g) maximum aggregate size (ag).

19
J. Rahman et al. Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743

C.4. Fiber aspect ratio

Fig. 8(d) illustrates the action of fiber aspect ratio on the shear capacity of SFRC beams. It is seen that the aspect ratio had a positive effect on the
shear strength up to an lf/df value of 100. For greater values of lf/df, the shear strength is observed to reduce. This phenomenon is attributed to the fact
that a higher amount of steel fibers cluster together to form balls and therefore reduce the shear strength.

C.5. Fiber factor and fiber volume fraction

There is a rapid increase in shear capacity when the fiber volume fraction increased up to 1.0% as seen in Fig. 8(e). Similar findings are also
achieved by researchers where shear strength increased when Vf increased up to 1.0% and 0.75% respectively [1,141]. As observed from Fig. 8(f), the
shear strength increased up to a fiber factor of 80 and beyond this value, the shear strength is observed to decrease.

C.6. Maximum size of aggregates

As seen in Fig. 8(g), the shear strength increased up to a size of 10 mm. Increasing the ag beyond that somehow reduced the shear strength of the
SFRC beams. The reason attributed to this is that smaller aggregates allow uniform mixing and so an improved bond exists between the fiber and the
SFRC mix [71].

References [24] Hanai JB, Holanda KMA. Similarities between punching and shear strength of
steel fiber reinforced concrete (SFRC) slabs and beams. RIEM-IBRACON Struct
Mater J 2008;1(1).
[1] Shahnewaz M, Alam MS. Genetic algorithm for predicting shear strength of steel
[25] ACI, Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
fiber reinforced concrete beam with parameter identification and sensitivity
Commentary. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI; 2019.
analysis. J Build Eng 2020;29. 101205.
[26] Cohen M, Aoude H. Shear behavior of SFRC and SCFRC beams. Proceedings of the
[2] Cusson D, Paultre P. High-strength concrete columns confined by rectangular ties.
3rd international structural specialty conference, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 2012.
J Struct Eng 1994;120(3):783–804.
[27] CNR—Advisory committee on technical recommendations for construction, in
[3] Cusson D, Paultre P. Stress-strain model for confined high-strength concrete.
guide for the design and construction of fiber-reinforced concrete structures;
J Struct Eng 1995;121(3):468–77.
CNR-DT 204/2006: Rome, Italy.2007.
[4] Chalioris CE, Kosmidou P-MK, Karayannis CG. Cyclic response of steel fiber
[28] Sharma A. Shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams. J Proc 1986.
reinforced concrete slender beams: An experimental study. Materials 2019;12(9):
[29] Zarrinpour MR, Chao S-H. Shear strength enhancement mechanisms of steel fiber-
1398.
reinforced concrete slender beams. ACI Struct J 2017;114(3).
[5] Spinella N. Shear strength of full-scale steel fibre-reinforced concrete beams
[30] Sanal I. Effect of shear span-to-depth ratio on mechanical performance and
without stirrups. Comput Concr 2013;11(5):365–82.
cracking behavior of high strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams without
[6] Perceka W, Liao W-C, Wang Y-D. High strength concrete columns under axial
conventional reinforcement. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2019:1–16.
compression load: Hybrid confinement efficiency of high strength transverse
[31] Singh B, Jain K. Appraisal of steel fibers as minimum shear reinforcement in
reinforcement and steel fibers. Materials 2016;9(4):264.
concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2014;111(5).
[7] Slater E, Moni M, Alam MS. Predicting the shear strength of steel fiber reinforced
[32] Narayanan R, Darwish I. Use of steel fibers as shear reinforcement. Struct J 1987;
concrete beams. Constr Build Mater 2012;26(1):423–36.
84(3):216–27.
[8] Shahjalal M, Islam K, Ahmed KS, Tamanna K, Alam MS. Mechanical
[33] Tan K, Murugappan K, Paramasivam P. Shear behavior of steel fiber reinforced
Characterization of Rubberized Fiber Reinforced Recycled Aggregate Concrete for
concrete beams. Struct J 1993;90(1):3–11.
Bridge Barriers. in Proceedings of the IABSE-JSCE Advances in Bridge
[34] Ashour SA, Hasanain GS, Wafa FF. Shear behavior of high-strength fiber
Engineering-IV Conference. 2020. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
reinforced concrete beams. Struct J 1992;89(2):176–84.
[9] Shahjalal M, Islam K, Rahman J, Ahmed KS, Karim MR, Billah AM. Flexural
[35] Swamy RN, Jones R, Chiam AT. Influence of steel fibers on the shear resistance of
response of fiber reinforced concrete beams with waste tires rubber and recycled
lightweight concrete I-beams. Struct J 1993;90(1):103–14.
aggregate. J Cleaner Prod 2020;278. 123842.
[36] Kwak Y-K, Eberhard MO, Kim W-S, Kim J. Shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced
[10] Hossain FZ, Shahjalal M, Islam K, Tiznobaik M, Alam MS. Mechanical properties
concrete beams without stirrups. ACI Struct J 2002;99(4):530–8.
of recycled aggregate concrete containing crumb rubber and polypropylene fiber.
[37] Cho S-H, Kim Y-I. Effects of steel fibers on short beams loaded in shear. Struct J
Constr Build Mater 2019;225:983–96.
2003;100(6):765–74.
[11] Abbas S, Soliman AM, Nehdi ML. Exploring mechanical and durability properties
[38] Dupont D, Vandewalle L. Shear capacity of concrete beams containing
of ultra-high performance concrete incorporating various steel fiber lengths and
longitudinal reinforcement and steel fibers. Special Publication 2003;216:79–94.
dosages. Constr Build Mater 2015;75:429–41.
[39] Cucchiara C, La Mendola L, Papia M. Effectiveness of stirrups and steel fibres as
[12] Banthia N, Sappakittipakorn M. Toughness enhancement in steel fiber reinforced
shear reinforcement. Cem Concr Compos 2004;26(7):777–86.
concrete through fiber hybridization. Cem Concr Res 2007;37(9):1366–72.
[40] Parra-Montesinos GJ. Shear strength of beams with deformed steel fibers. Concr
[13] Mirsayah AA, Banthia N. Shear strength of steel fiber-reinforced concrete. Mater J
Int 2006;28(11):57–66.
2002;99(5):473–9.
[41] Ly H-B, Le T-T, Vu H-LT, Tran VQ, Le LM, Pham BT. Computational hybrid
[14] Hwang J-H, Lee DH, Kim KS, Ju H, Seo S-Y. Evaluation of shear performance of
machine learning based prediction of shear capacity for steel fiber reinforced
steel fibre reinforced concrete beams using a modified smeared-truss model. Mag
concrete beams. Sustainability 2020;12(7):2709.
Concr Res 2013;65(5):283–96.
[42] Abambres M, Lantsoght EO. ANN-based shear capacity of steel fiber-reinforced
[15] Majdzadeh F, Soleimani SM, Banthia N. Shear strength of reinforced concrete
concrete beams without stirrups. Fibers 2019;7(10):88.
beams with a fiber concrete matrix. Can J Civ Eng 2006;33(6):726–34.
[43] Chalioris CE. Analytical approach for the evaluation of minimum fibre factor
[16] Greenough T, Nehdi M. Shear behavior of fiber-reinforced self-consolidating
required for steel fibrous concrete beams under combined shear and flexure.
concrete slender beams. ACI Mater J 2008;105(5):468.
Constr Build Mater 2013;43:317–36.
[17] Salehian H, Barros JA. Prediction of the load carrying capacity of elevated steel
[44] Xie Y, Ebad Sichani M, Padgett JE, DesRoches R. The promise of implementing
fibre reinforced concrete slabs. Compos Struct 2017;170:169–91.
machine learning in earthquake engineering: A state-of-the-art review.
[18] Venkateshwaran A, Tan KH. Arching action in steel fiber-reinforced concrete flat
Earthquake Spectra, 2020: p. 8755293020919419.
slabs. ACI Struct J 2018;115(6).
[45] Mangalathu S, Jeon J-S. Machine learning–based failure mode recognition of
[19] Nelson PK, Li VC, Kamada T. Fracture toughness of microfiber reinforced cement
circular reinforced concrete bridge columns: Comparative study. J Struct Eng
composites. J Mater Civ Eng 2002;14(5):384–91.
2019;145(10):04019104.
[20] Lawler J, Wilhelm T, Zampini D, Shah SP. Fracture processes of hybrid fiber-
[46] Kameshwar S, Misra S, Padgett JE. Decision tree based bridge restoration models
reinforced mortar. Mater Struct 2003;36(3):197–208.
for extreme event performance assessment of regional road networks. Struct
[21] Kytinou K, Chalioris VE, Karayannis CG, Elenas AC. Effect of steel fibers on the
Infrastruct Eng 2020;16(3):431–51.
hysteretic performance of concrete beams with steel reinforcement—tests and
[47] Karim RM, Islam K, Ahmed KS, Zhang Q. Application of machine learning in
analysis. Materials, 2020. 13(13): p. 2923.
bridge engineering: a state-of-the-art review. In: Proceedings of the IABSE-JSCE
[22] Chalioris CE, Panagiotopoulos TA. Flexural analysis of steel fibre-reinforced
Advances in Bridge Engineering-IV Conference. 2020. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
concrete members. Comput Concr 2018;22(1):11–25.
[48] Parmar KS, Soni K, Singh S. Prediction of river water quality parameters using
[23] Kytinou VK, Chalioris CE, Karayannis CG. Analysis of residual flexural stiffness of
soft computing techniques, in intelligent data analytics for decision-support
steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams with steel reinforcement. Materials 2020;13
systems in hazard mitigation. Springer. p. 429–440.
(12):2698.

20
J. Rahman et al.
[49] Yao X, Tham L, Dai F. Landslide susceptibility mapping based on support vector
machine: a case study on natural slopes of Hong Kong, China. Geomorphology
2008;101(4):572–82.
[50] Yan F, Lin Z, Wang X, Azarmi F, Sobolev K. Evaluation and prediction of bond
strength of GFRP-bar reinforced concrete using artificial neural network
optimized with genetic algorithm. Compos Struct 2017;161:441–52.
[51] Chopra P, Sharma RK, Kumar M, Chopra T. Comparison of machine learning
techniques for the prediction of compressive strength of concrete. Adv Civil Eng
2018;2018.
[52] Zhou Q, Zhu F, Yang X, Wang F, Chi B, Zhang Z. Shear capacity estimation of fully
grouted reinforced concrete masonry walls using neural network and adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system models. Constr Build Mater 2017;153:937–47.
[53] Seo J, Linzell DG. Use of response surface metamodels to generate system level
fragilities for existing curved steel bridges. Eng Struct 2013;52:642–53.
[54] Seo J, Dueñas-Osorio L, Craig JI, Goodno BJ. Metamodel-based regional
vulnerability estimate of irregular steel moment-frame structures subjected to
earthquake events. Eng Struct 2012;45:585–97.
[55] Seo J, Pokhrel J. Surrogate modeling for self-consolidating concrete
characteristics estimation for efficient prestressed bridge construction. Special
Publication 2019;333:19–39.
[56] Pokhrel J, Seo J. Natural hazard vulnerability quantification of offshore wind
turbine in shallow water. Eng Struct 2019;192:254–63.
[57] Keshtegar B, Bagheri M, Yaseen ZM. Shear strength of steel fiber-unconfined
reinforced concrete beam simulation: Application of novel intelligent model.
Compos Struct 2019;212:230–42.
[58] Blanco JL, Fuchs S, Parsons M, Ribeirinho MJ. Artificial intelligence: Construction
technology’s next frontier. McKinsey & Company 2018.
[59] Okazaki Y, Okazaki S, Asamoto S, Chun Pj. Applicability of machine learning to a
crack model in concrete bridges. Comput-Aided Civil Infrastructure Eng; 2020.
[60] Tong Z, Yuan D, Gao J, Wang Z. Pavement defect detection with fully
convolutional network and an uncertainty framework. Comput-Aided Civ
Infrastruct Eng 2020.
[61] Mangalathu S, Jang H, Hwang S-H, Jeon J-S. Data-driven machine-learning-based
seismic failure mode identification of reinforced concrete shear walls. Eng Struct
2020;208. 110331.
[62] Mangalathu S, Sun H, Nweke CC, Yi Z, Burton HV. Classifying earthquake damage
to buildings using machine learning. Earthquake Spectra 2020;36(1):183–208.
[63] Mangalathu S, Jeon J-S. Classification of failure mode and prediction of shear
strength for reinforced concrete beam-column joints using machine learning
techniques. Eng Struct 2018;160:85–94.
[64] Feng D-C, Liu Z-T, Wang X-D, Jiang Z-M, Liang S-XJAEI. Failure mode
classification and bearing capacity prediction for reinforced concrete columns
based on ensemble machine learning algorithm. 2020. 45: p. 101126.
[65] Shahnewaz M, Alam MS. Improved shear equations for steel fiber-reinforced
concrete deep and slender beams. ACI Struct J 2014;111(4):551–860.
[66] Shahnewaz M, Rteil A, Alam MS. Shear strength of reinforced concrete deep
beams–A review with improved model by genetic algorithm and reliability
analysis. Structures. Elsevier; 2020.
[67] Hossain KM, Gladson LR, Anwar MS. Modeling shear strength of medium-to ultra-
high-strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams using artificial neural
network. Neural Comput Appl 2017;28(1):1119–30.
[68] Sarveghadi M, Gandomi AH, Bolandi H, Alavi AH. Development of prediction
models for shear strength of SFRCB using a machine learning approach. Neural
Comput Appl 2019;31(7):2085–94.
[69] Yaseen ZM, Tran MT, Kim S, Bakhshpoori T, Deo RC. Shear strength prediction of
steel fiber reinforced concrete beam using hybrid intelligence models: a new
approach. Eng Struct 2018;177:244–55.
[70] Ahmadi M, Kheyroddin A, Dalvand A, Kioumarsi M. New empirical approach for
determining nominal shear capacity of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams.
Constr Build Mater 2020;234. 117293.
[71] Lantsoght EO. Database of shear experiments on steel fiber reinforced concrete
beams without stirrups. Materials 2019;12(6):917.
[72] Perceka W, Liao W-C, Wu Y-F. Shear strength prediction equations and
experimental study of high strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams with
different shear span-to-depth ratios. Appl Sci 2019;9(22):4790.
[73] ACI-ASCE. Committee 426. Shear strength of reinforced concrete members.
19Proceedings ASCE 1973;99(6):1091–187 [Reaffirmed in 1980 and published
by ACI as Publication No. 426R-74].
[74] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al.
Machine learning in Python. the J Mach Learning Res 2011;12:2825–30.
[75] Liang H, Song W. Improved estimation in multiple linear regression models with
measurement error and general constraint. J Multivariate Anal 2009;100(4):
726–41.
[76] Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. The elements of statistical learning. Vol. 1.
2001: Springer series in statistics New York.
[77] Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learning 2001;45(1):5–32.
[78] Wang S-C. Artificial neural network. In: Interdisciplinary computing in java
programming. Springer; 2003. p. 81–100.
[79] Zhang C, Ma Y. Ensemble machine learning: methods and applications. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2012.
[80] Prokhorenkova L, Gusev G, Vorobev A, Dorogush AV, Gulin A. CatBoost: unbiased
boosting with categorical features. in Advances in neural information processing
systems; 2018.
[81] Awad M, Khanna R. Support vector regression. In: Efficient learning machines:
theories, concepts, and applications for engineers and system designers. Berkeley,
CA: Apress; 2015. p. 67–80.
21
Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743
[82] Chiu M-H, Yu Y-R, Liaw H, Hao L. The use of facial micro-expression state and
tree-forest model for predicting conceptual-conflict based conceptual change;
2016.
[83] Safi S, Belaid B. Printed noisy greek characters recognition using hidden markov
model, Kohonen network, K nearest neighbours and fuzzy logic. Int J Signal
Process, Image Process Pattern Recogn 2015;8:241–56.
[84] Vignesh A, Selvan TY, Krishnan GG, Sasikumar A, Kumar VA. Efficient student
profession prediction using XGBoost algorithm. International conference on
emerging current trends in computing and expert technology. Springer; 2019.
[85] Chen Q, Rahman A, El-Sawah A, Shen X, El Saddik A, Georganas N. Accessing
learning objects in virtual environment by hand gestures and voice; 2020.
[86] Khuntia M, Stojadinovic B, Goel SC. Shear strength of normal and high-strength
fiber reinforced concrete beams without stirrups. Struct J 1999;96(2):282–9.
[87] Zsutty TC. Beam shear strength prediction by analysis of existing data. J Proc
1968.
[88] Vamdewalle MI, Mortelmans F. Shear capacity of steel fiber high-strength
concrete beams. Special Publication 1994;149:227–42.
[89] Ranjan Sahoo D, Sharma A. Effect of steel fiber content on behavior of concrete
beams with and without stirrups. ACI Struct J 2014;111(5).
[90] Manju R, Sathya S, Sylviya B. Shear strength of high-strength steel fiber
reinforced concrete rectangular beams. Int J Civil Eng Technol 2017;8(8):
1716–29.
[91] Arslan G, Keskin RSO, Ulusoy S. An experimental study on the shear strength of
SFRC beams without stirrups. J Theor Appl Mech 2017;55(4):1205–17.
[92] Rosenbusch J, Teutsch M. Trial beams in shear, brite/euram project 97-4163.
Final Report, Sub Task, 2002. 4.
[93] Sahoo DR, Bhagat S, Reddy TCV. Experimental study on shear-span to effective-
depth ratio of steel fiber reinforced concrete T-beams. Mater Struct 2016;49(9):
3815–30.
[94] Jindal RL. Shear and moment capacities of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams.
Special Publication 1984;81:1–16.
[95] Shin S-W, Oh J-G, Ghosh S. Shear behavior of laboratory-sized high-strength
concrete beams reinforced with bars and steel fibers. Special Publication 1994;
142:181–200.
[96] KwakK K-H, Suh J, Hsu C-TT. Shear-fatigue behavior of steel fiber reinforced
concrete beams. Struct J 1991;88(2):155–60.
[97] Roberts T, Ho N. Shear failure of deep fibre reinforced concrete beams. Int J Cem
Compos Lightweight Concrete 1982;4(3):145–52.
[98] Spinella N, Colajanni P, La Mendola L. Nonlinear analysis of beams reinforced in
shear with stirrups and steel fibers. ACI Struct J 2012;109(1):53.
[99] Tahenni T, Chemrouk M, Lecompte T. Effect of steel fibers on the shear behavior
of high strength concrete beams. Constr Build Mater 2016;105:14–28.
[100] Amin A, Foster SJ. Shear strength of steel fibre reinforced concrete beams with
stirrups. Eng Struct 2016;111:323–32.
[101] de Lima Araújo D, Nunes FGT, Toledo Filho RD, de Andrade MAS. Shear strength
of steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams. Acta Scientiarum Technology 2014;36
(3):389–97.
[102] Casanova P, Rossi P. Can steel fibers replace transverse reinforcements in
reinforced concrete beams? Mater J 1997;94(5):341–54.
[103] Minelli F, Plizzari GA. On the effectiveness of steel fibers as shear reinforcement.
ACI Struct J 2013;110(3).
[104] Lim D, Oh B. Experimental and theoretical investigation on the shear of steel fibre
reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 1999;21(10):937–44.
[105] Dinh HH. Shear behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams without stirrup
reinforcement; 2009.
[106] Casanova P, Rossi P. High-strength concrete beams submitted to shear: steel fibers
versus stirrups. Special Publication 1999;182:53–68.
[107] Lim T, Paramasivam P, Lee S. Shear and moment capacity of reinforced steel-
fibre-concrete beams. Mag Concr Res 1987;39(140):148–60.
[108] Mansur M, Ong K, Paramasivam P. Shear strength of fibrous concrete beams
without stirrups. J Struct Eng 1986;112(9):2066–79.
[109] Kang TH, Kim W, Massone LM, Galleguillos TA. Shear-flexure coupling behavior
of steel fiber-reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2012;109(4).
[110] Swamy RN, Bahia HM. The effectiveness of steel fibers as shear reinforcement.
Concr Int 1985;7(3).
[111] Randl N, Mészöly T, Harsányi P. Shear behaviour of UHPC beams with varying
degrees of fibre and shear reinforcement. In: High tech concrete: where
technology and engineering meet. Springer; 2018. p. 500–7.
[112] Pansuk W, Nguyen TN, Sato Y, Den Uijl J, Walraven J. Shear capacity of high
performance fiber reinforced concrete I-beams. Constr Build Mater 2017;157:
182–93.
[113] Kim C-G, Lee H, Park H-G, Hong G-H, Kang S-M. Effect of steel fibers on minimum
shear reinforcement of high-strength concrete beams. ACI Struct J 2017;114(5).
[114] Narayan R, Darwish I. Fiber concrete deep beams in shear. Struct J 1988;85(2):
141–9.
[115] Li VC, Ward R, Hamza AM. Steel and synthetic fibers as shear reinforcement;
1992.
[116] Adebar P, Mindess S, Pierre DS, Olund B. Shear tests of fiber concrete beams
without stirrups. Struct J, 1997. 94(1): p. 68–76.
[117] Zhao J, Liang J, Chu L, Shen F. Experimental study on shear behavior of steel fiber
reinforced concrete beams with high-strength reinforcement. Materials 2018;11
(9):1682.
[118] Qissab M, Salman MM. Shear strength of non-prismatic steel fiber reinforced
concrete beams without stirrups. Struct Eng Mech 2018;67(4):347–58.
[119] Junior S, Hanai J. Shear behavior of fiber reinforced beams. Cem Conc Compos
1997;19:359–66.
J. Rahman et al.
[120] Dancygier A, Savir Z. Effects of steel fibers on shear behavior of high-strength
reinforced concrete beams. Adv Struct Eng 2011;14(5):745–61.
[121] Krassowska J, Kosior-Kazberuk M. Failure mode in shear of steel fiber reinforced
concrete beams. in MATEC Web of Conferences. 2018. EDP Sciences.
[122] Gali S, Subramaniam KV. Shear behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete using
full-field displacements from digital image correlation. In MATEC Web of
Conferences. 2017. EDP Sciences.
[123] Yoo D-Y, Yang J-M. Effects of stirrup, steel fiber, and beam size on shear behavior
of high-strength concrete beams. Cem Concr Compos 2018;87:137–48.
[124] Zamanzadeh Z, Lourenço L, Barros J. Recycled steel fibre reinforced concrete
failing in bending and in shear. Constr Build Mater 2015;85:195–207.
[125] Shoaib A, Lubell AS, Bindiganavile VS. Size effect in shear for steel fiber-
reinforced concrete members without stirrups. ACI Struct J 2014;111(5):1081.
[126] Shoaib A. Shear in Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete without Stirrups. Edmonton,
AB, Canada: University of Alberta; 2012.
[127] Bae BI, Choi HK, Choi CS. Flexural and shear capacity evaluation of reinforced
ultra-high strength concrete members with steel rebars. Key engineering
materials. Trans Tech Publ; 2014.
[128] Abdul-Zaher AS, Abdul-Hafez LM, Tawfic YR, Hammed O. Shear behavior of fiber
reinforced concrete beams. J Eng Sci Assiut Univ 2016;44:132–44.
[129] Chalioris C, Sfiri E. Shear performance of steel fibrous concrete beams. Procedia
Eng 2011;14:2064–8.
[130] Noghabai K. Beams of fibrous concrete in shear and bending: experiment and
model. J Struct Eng 2000;126(2):243–51.
22
Engineering Structures 233 (2021) 111743
[131] Batson G, Jenkins E, Spatney R. Steel fibers as shear reinforcement in beams.
J Proc 1972.
[132] Lee J-Y, Shin H-O, Yoo D-Y, Yoon Y-S. Structural response of steel-fiber-reinforced
concrete beams under various loading rates. Eng Struct 2018;156:271–83.
[133] Alzahrani F. Shear behaviour of steel fibre-reinforced high strength lightweight
concrete beams without web reinforcement. Memorial University of
Newfoundland 2018.
[134] Sahoo DR, Kumar N. Monotonic behavior of large-scale SFRC beams without
stirrups. Eng Struct 2015;92:46–54.
[135] Torres JA, Lantsoght EO. Influence of fiber content on shear capacity of steel
fiber-reinforced concrete beams. Fibers 2019;7(12):102.
[136] Huang C-K, Zhang H-Z, Guan Z-G. Expérimental study on shear résistance of steel
fiber reinforced high-strength concrète beams. Special Publication 2005;228:
687–704.
[137] Nilson AH, Darwin D, Dolan CW. Design of concrete structures. 14 ed. 2010:
McGraw-Hill Education New York.
[138] Henager CH, Doherty TJ. Analysis of reinforced fibrous concrete beams. J Struct
Div 1976;102(ASCE#:11847).
[139] El-Sayed AK, El-Salakawy EF, Benmokrane B. Shear capacity of high-strength
concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. ACI Struct J 2006;103(3):383.
[140] Londhe R. Shear strength analysis and prediction of reinforced concrete transfer
beams in high-rise buildings. Struct Eng Mech 2011;37(1):39.
[141] Dinh HH, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Shear strength model for steel fiber
reinforced concrete beams without stirrup reinforcement. J Struct Eng 2011;137
(10):1039–51.