Neural Computing and Applications

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-08164-7 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A hybrid artificial intelligence model for design of reinforced concrete

columns
1 •
Sinan Melih Nigdeli Melda Yücel1 • Gebrail Bekdaş1

Received: 2 February 2022 / Accepted: 6 December 2022

Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
In the optimum design of structures, the optimization process is an iterative one and it may last a long time. If the structural
plan is updated, the optimization process is needed to be redone since dimensions and internal forces change. Also, the
local market prices may show differences and the proposed design may not be the optimum anymore. To skip the
optimization process, intelligence methods can be used to predict the optimum values. In the study, a model is proposed for
cost optimum results of reinforced concrete columns. A hybrid method is presented that uses harmony search as a
metaheuristic method in the optimum design and multi-layer perceptions as a type of artificial neural networks in machine
learning to generate a model. The prediction results were evaluated for several error metrics, and the model is feasible in
proposing optimum solutions.

Keywords Reinforced concrete  Machine learning  Artificial neural networks  Prediction  Columns

1 Introduction
Structural engineering has a wide variety of structural
designs and models. They require usability and aesthetics
as well as safety and economics, both in extreme condi-
tions and in sudden situations including winds and earth-
quakes. To meet these needs together, it is important to
realize the design accurately and precisely, as well as
controllable and renewable solutions. Time and labor fac-
tors are also very important for this goal. It is known that
the use of classical analysis programs with advanced cod-
ing software has become more important in recent years.
Especially for optimization, coding is preferred more than
analysis programs because it is more useful and updat-
able and can be adjusted by any designer. In addition, if
problems in optimization are evaluated, the determination
& Gebrail Bekdaş
bekdas@iuc.edu.tr
Sinan Melih Nigdeli
melihnig@iuc.edu.tr
Melda Yücel
melda.yucel@yahoo.com.tr
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul University-
Cerrahpaşa, 34320 Avcılar, Istanbul, Turkey
of the best solution or choice for the design and model
should be considered. This is because the method can be
used to best solve the mentioned problem and converge to
it. There are many types of optimization, but today, the
most researched, perhaps wondered, preferred and used
metaheuristic methods are. The metaheuristic has the
power and ability to solve a problem in any optimal
direction.
In the update of the solutions, the optimization process
must be redone, and this process involves numerical iter-
ations that can take time. Intelligent techniques with
measurable performance are required, as well as achieving
the desired design criteria and solutions faster and per-
forming these actions in a short time and with precision.
The use of these techniques provides benefits in terms of
both time and effort, and in this way, early intervention can
be made against the negativities that occur in the designs.
The mentioned methods refer to machine learning
techniques in artificial intelligence (AI) technology and can
find the desired results in an extremely short time for any
model with a large number of design members. Sample
studies that are carried out include pre-calculation of how
much water will be delivered to residents in any city net-
work line [1–4]; predetermination of the probability of
occurrence of vehicle traffic accidents in places [5–7];

123

Fig. 1 3-D model illustration and loading conditions for the RC
column
Table 1 Optimization constants and variables
Description
Design Column length (l)
constants
Axial force (Nz)
Flexural moment (My)
The unit cost of concrete
per m3 (Cc)
The unit cost of steel per
ton (Cs)
Yield strength of steel (fy)
Compressive strength of
concrete (f’c)
The elasticity modulus of
steel (Es)
The specific density of
steel (cs)
Design The breadth of column (b)
variables The height of member (h)
Steel ratio, (q)
Table 2 Design constraints
Description
Maximum axial force (Nmax)
Minimum steel ratio, (qmin)
Maximum steel ratio, (qmax)
Flexural strength capacity (Md)
Axial force capacity (Nd)
123
Neural Computing and Applications
Fig. 2 Prediction model for the determination of properties for RC
column designs
determination of the most appropriate drug dose for the
treatment of any disease [8–11]; the determination of how
much the total construction cost of a new building will be
[12–15] can be shown.
In structural engineering, several prediction studies
using networks including prediction of optimum tuned
mass damper (TMD) parameters [16], optimum design of
carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) [17], optimum
design of truss structures [18, 19] and optimum design of
Value reinforced concrete structures [19–21] have been con-
ducted. For reinforced concrete structures, the prediction of
Input in ANNs model
(Optimized for optimum results of columns was not previously investi-
multiple values for data gated and a prediction model for these members is
generation) important since these members are under the effect of both
tension and compression according to the loading condi-
tions. In the present study, a hybrid method that predicts
the optimum design of reinforced concrete (RC) columns is
420 MPa presented. Firstly, the optimum values are found via the
30 MPa methodology using harmony search (HS). Then, the opti-
mum results for different input values including length,
200,000 MPa internal loads and cost of materials are used in machine
learning to reflect the possible change in the structural plan
7.86 t/m3 and market prices. A prediction of multi-layer perceptions
(MLP) that is a type of artificial neural network (ANNs)
250–400 mm
was chosen.
300–500 mm
0.01–0.06
2 Materials and methods
Constraints 2.1 Optimization process
g1: Nd B Nmax = 0.5fc’bh For RC members, the cost optimization problem is a
g2: q C qmin = 0.01 nonlinear one because of design constraints defined
g3: q B q smax = 0.06 according to design codes. Various metaheuristic methods
g4: Md C My have been proposed for different types of members
g5: Nd C Nz [22–30].
Neural Computing and Applications

In this study, HS proposed by Geem et al. [31] was used

in the optimization process to collect data for machine
learning.
The RC column presented in this study is subjected to an
axial force (Nz) and a flexural moment (My). The loading is
shown in Fig. 1. The design constants and design variables
of the problem are shown in Table 1. The optimization
process was done for multiple values of the input
parameters.
The design constraints are defined according to ACI
318: Building Code Requirement for reinforced concrete
[32], and these are listed in Table 2. The optimization
objective is given as Eq. (1), and it is the total cost of RC
column. As is the area of steel reinforcements.
 X  X 
f1 ðXÞ ¼ bh  As lCc þ As lcs Cs ð1Þ

In the optimization methodology via HS, the first stage

is the definition of the design constants and ranges of
design variables. Then, an initial solution matrix is gener-
ated and it contains HMS (harmony memory size) sets of
design variables that are randomly assigned according to
the selected range. Then, the objective function is calcu-
lated and the objective is penalized with a big value (106)
when a violation of the design constraints occurs. The
candidate solution for design variables, for example, for ith
variable (Xi), is calculated via Eq. (2) for the initial values
and the global optimization stage. Xi,min and Xi,max are
lower and upper bounds of ith design variable, and a ran-
dom number between 0 and 1 is shown as rand().
 
X i ¼ X i;min þ randðÞ X i;max  X i;min ð2Þ
After the generation of initial values, new values are
generated via global or local optimization in the iterations.
The formulations of phases are shown in Eq. (3). The type
of generation is defined according to harmony memory
consideration rate (HMCR), and it is taken as 0.5. In local
optimization, a random existing solution (k) is chosen. Xi,k
is the kth existing solution of ith design variable, and PAR
is the parameter called pitch adjusting rate that is taken as
0.25. In each iteration, the objective function for new Fig. 3 Flowchart for the working principle of the hybrid optimiza-
tion–machine learning approach
values is checked according to the reduction in the objec-
tive function for the existing solutions.

Table 3 Input parameters with

Input name Symbol Ranges Increment Unit
the design ranges
Unit cost for concrete Cc 50–100 25 $
Unit cost for steel Cs 500–1500
Column length l 3000–7000 1000 cm
Value of flexural moment Mz 1.00e ? 08–5.00e ? 08 1.00e ? 08 N
Value of axial force Ny 1.00e ? 06–5.00e ? 06 1.00e ? 06 Nm

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Table 4 Obtained errors between actual and predicted values for 2.2 Prediction approach via artificial neural
outputs in training data networks (ANNs)
Error metric h b
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have got many different
Mean absolute error (MAE) 0.3538 0.0630
kinds in terms of formation, which were developed by
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) 0.0428 0.0250
inspired by the natural structure and working mechanism of
Mean square error (MSE) 0.4558 0.0109 the human central neural system, and the learning process
Root mean square error (RMSE) 0.6751 0.1043 by coordinately working together with the brain. Besides, it
is a kind of machine learning algorithm. The difference
between these systems is based on the structure related to
layer number, type of feed, learning algorithm rules, etc. In
Xi;new this study, multilayer feed-forward artificial neural net-
8  
>
< HMCR [ randðÞ; Xi;min þ randðÞ Xi;max  Xi;min works or more widely known as multi-layer perceptrons
  (MLPs), which are one of the most frequently used kinds of
¼ 1 1  
>
: HMCR\randðÞ; Xi;k þ rand ; PAR Xi;max  Xi;min
2 2 ANNs, occur due to those numerous nodes acting as arti-
ficial neurons are placed on more than one layer. These
ð3Þ
layers consist of one output layer together with one or more
hidden layers, besides one input layer. In Fig. 2, the

Table 5 Optimum results of

Inputs Outputs Other values
column designs within the test
model Cc Cs L Mz Ny b h q Min. Total Cost

50 550 3250 1.00e ? 08 2.00e ? 06 250.2149 580.0830 0.01 43.9787

75 1000 5500 3.00e ? 08 1.00e ? 06 250.0714 583.7821 0.01 123.3300
60 750 3000 2.00e ? 08 2.00e ? 06 250.0000 600.3484 0.01 53.5586
75 600 6000 3.00e ? 08 3.00e ? 06 250.3849 842.0089 0.01 154.5273
75 850 6000 3.00e ? 08 3.00e ? 06 250.0899 843.0110 0.01 179.3856
85 750 3000 2.00e ? 08 2.00e ? 06 250.0000 600.3483 0.01 64.8151
75 1100 6000 3.00e ? 08 3.00e ? 06 250.0868 843.1172 0.01 204.2655
150 1000 5000 4.00e ? 08 4.00e ? 06 278.0516 1000.0000 0.01 317.8130
100 2000 5000 4.00e ? 08 4.00e ? 06 278.0512 1000.0000 0.01 357.5738
100 1500 8000 4.00e ? 08 4.00e ? 06 278.0519 1000.0000 0.01 484.7001

Table 6 Error rates between

Predicted values by ANNs Error rates
actual optimum values and
predictions for b concerning the b Error Absolute error Absolute percentage (%) Error Square error
test model
250.2627 - 0.0478 0.0478 0.0191 0.0023
249.9610 0.1104 0.1104 0.0441 0.0122
250.1071 - 0.1071 0.1071 0.0428 0.0115
250.1850 0.2000 0.2000 0.0799 0.0400
250.1866 - 0.0968 0.0968 0.0387 0.0094
250.1070 - 0.1070 0.1070 0.0428 0.0114
250.1883 - 0.1015 0.1015 0.0406 0.0103
278.0656 - 0.0140 0.0140 0.0050 0.0002
278.0602 - 0.0090 0.0090 0.0033 0.0001
278.0636 - 0.0116 0.0116 0.0042 0.0001
MAE MAPE MSE
Mean 0.0825 0.0320 0.0097
RMSE 0.0987

123
Neural Computing and Applications

Table 7 Error rates between

Predicted values by ANNs Error rates
actual optimum values and
predictions for h with respect to H Error Absolute error Absolute percentage (%) error Square error
test model
579.8253 0.2578 0.2578 0.0444 0.0665
583.8159 - 0.0338 0.0338 0.0058 0.0011
600.0803 0.2681 0.2681 0.0447 0.0719
844.6320 - 2.6231 2.6231 0.3115 6.8805
844.6264 - 1.6154 1.6154 0.1916 2.6094
600.0547 0.2935 0.2935 0.0489 0.0862
844.6208 - 1.5036 1.5036 0.1783 2.2607
999.6422 0.3578 0.3578 0.0358 0.1280
999.5261 0.4739 0.4739 0.0474 0.2246
999.5859 0.4141 0.4141 0.0414 0.1714
MAE MAPE MSE
Mean 0.7841 0.0950 1.2500
RMSE 1.1180

Table 8 Error rates between actual and calculated values with predicted outputs for minimum total costs
Calculated values by predictions Error rates
MIN. TOTAL COST Error Absolute error Absolute percentage (%) Error Square error

43.9676 0.0111 0.0111 0.0253 0.0001

123.2827 0.0473 0.0473 0.0383 0.0022
53.5576 0.0010 0.0010 0.0019 0.0000
154.8849 - 0.3576 0.3576 0.2314 0.1279
179.7988 - 0.4132 0.4132 0.2304 0.1708
64.8111 0.0040 0.0040 0.0061 0.0000
204.7128 - 0.4473 0.4473 0.2190 0.2000
317.7153 0.0977 0.0977 0.0307 0.0095
357.4160 0.1578 0.1578 0.0441 0.0249
484.5197 0.1804 0.1804 0.0372 0.0326
MAE MAPE MSE
Mean 0.1717 0.0865 0.0568
RMSE 0.2383

structure of MLPs for the current problem is illustrated
below.
In MLPs, these nodes are connected to each other and
have a specific weight value between themselves, and
layers are arranged in the way forward flowing. From this
respect, in the process of network weights determination,
namely learning, MLPs are considered a calculation tool,
which can arrange its structure by depending on the
internal/external information flowing along with the net-
work [33, 34]. In question, learning is also known as
training of the network, and the back-propagation method
benefiting from the generalized delta rule, which succes-
sively makes a differential calculation to train a multilayer
artificial neural network, is one of the learning algorithms
[35, 36]. This algorithm is a method based on the con-
nection weights that are rearranged by propagating the
obtained error to back for output values in nodes, in other
words, the previous layer, and in this way, the error is
minimized.
For the prediction process carried out by MLPs, the
main training dataset was ensured through numerous
optimization analyses in terms of minimization of the total
cost for structural design. In this context, several design
properties determined as input parameters are varied within
the specific value ranges to detect the optimum section
sizes of columns (h and b) by generating multiple optimum

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 4 Differences between 280.000 0.2200

actual values–predictions and 0.2000
changing of error rates for b 275.000
values corresponding test 0.1800
designs 270.000 0.1600
265.000 0.1400

Errors
0.1200
260.000

b
0.1000
255.000 0.0800

250.000 0.0600
0.0400
245.000
0.0200
240.000 0.0000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
b-actual 250.214 250.071 250.000 250.384 250.089 250.000 250.086 278.051 278.051 278.051
b-predicted 250.262 249.961 250.107 250.185 250.186 250.107 250.188 278.066 278.06 278.064
Absolute error 0.0478 0.1104 0.1071 0.2000 0.0968 0.1070 0.1015 0.0140 0.0090 0.0116
Absolute % error 0.0191 0.0441 0.0428 0.0799 0.0387 0.0428 0.0406 0.0050 0.0033 0.0042
Square error 0.0023 0.0122 0.0115 0.0400 0.0094 0.0114 0.0103 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001

Fig. 5 Differences between 1,025.000 7.2000

actual values–predictions and
changing of error rates for h 950.000 6.0000
values corresponding test
designs 875.000
4.8000
800.000

Errors
3.6000
h

725.000
2.4000
650.000

575.000 1.2000

500.000 0.0000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
h-actual 580.083 583.782 600.348 842.008 843.011 600.348 843.117 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00
h-predicted 579.825 583.815 600.080 844.632 844.626 600.054 844.620 999.642 999.526 999.585
Absolute error 0.2578 0.0338 0.2681 2.6231 1.6154 0.2935 1.5036 0.3578 0.4739 0.4141
Absolute % error 0.0444 0.0058 0.0447 0.3115 0.1916 0.0489 0.1783 0.0358 0.0474 0.0414
Square error 0.0665 0.0011 0.0719 6.8805 2.6094 0.0862 2.2607 0.1280 0.2246 0.1714

design combinations. Following this process, for the
training operation of the dataset, an application called
‘‘Neural Net Fitting’’ was benefited from the machine
learning toolbox belonging MATLAB R2018a [37]. Here,
the neural network structure has one hidden layer including
6 neurons. Also, the generated real optimization data were
divided into three groups for training, validation and testing
of network model. So, while training data are including
70%, each of validation and test groups is including 15% of
whole results. This process is also realized with k-fold
cross-validation (k = 10) methodology for dividing of
optimal results into these three data groups. Besides, all of
the described ranges in terms of input parameters are
shown in Table 3. It can be recognized that a total of 1875
optimum column designs were determined and considered
for the training of the main prediction model. Also, a
flowchart that provides to understand of the working
principle of the proposed approach is given in Fig. 3.
3 Numerical applications
In this section, the success, efficiency, and usability of the
hybrid model are observed via the measurement of error
rates and evaluation of different test models. Also, in terms
of different test structural models, deviation namely errors
are determined to occur in the generalizability of the
approach. The error calculations were presented for each

123
Neural Computing and Applications
Fig. 6 Differences between
actual values–predictions and
changing of error rates for
minimum cost values
Minimum Total Cost
corresponding test designs
Min. Cost-actual
Min. Cost-predicted 43.9676 123.282 53.5576 154.884 179.798 64.8111 204.712 317.715 357.416 484.519
Absolute error
Absolute % error
Square error
output parameter (h and b) concerning training data. All of
the error values are shown in Table 4 in terms of four
different metrics.
In the second phase of the prediction process, a test
dataset containing several design combinations was gen-
erated thanks to the smallness of whole error amounts and
thus efficiency and convergence performance of the main
ANNs model. In this meaning, for the generated dataset,
actual optimization information of column designs and the
predicted values of outputs together with error rates
according to actual outcomes are represented in Tables 5, 6
and 7, respectively.
On the other side, to validate the success and reflect the
performance of the prediction model, minimum total cost
values, which were obtained via optimization analyses,
were checked by calculating with the predicted values for
outputs parameters and the other design inputs within
Table 3 (such as C c , C s , L; etc.). The observed results are
shown in Table 8. Also, the value differences between the
actual data and predictions together with error rates for the
outputs are illustrated in Figs. 4, 5 and 6.
4 Conclusion
In the present study, an prediction model was created. It
was generated for the determining of optimum section
properties together with calculating of the total cost. In this
scope, by benefiting a machine learning methodology
based on ANNs, a large-scale dataset for column designs
according to design constants and ranges in Table 1 was
ensured in terms of training, and several different test
models for them were controlled and evaluated via the
developed ANNs model.
500.000 0.5000
450.000 0.4500
400.000 0.4000
350.000 0.3500
300.000 0.3000
Errors
250.000 0.2500
200.000 0.2000
150.000 0.1500
100.000 0.1000
50.000 0.0500
0.000 0.0000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
43.9787 123.330 53.5586 154.527 179.385 64.8151 204.265 317.813 357.573 484.700
0.0111 0.0473 0.0010 0.3576 0.4132 0.0040 0.4473 0.0977 0.1578 0.1804
0.0253 0.0383 0.0019 0.2314 0.2304 0.0061 0.2190 0.0307 0.0441 0.0372
0.0001 0.0022 0.0000 0.1279 0.1708 0.0000 0.2000 0.0095 0.0249 0.0326
According to the obtained results, the main prediction
model can be accepted as an extremely powerful prediction
tool thanks to the occurred error ratios for each output
parameter. The cause of this is that values of the detected
four error measurements were found at a quite low level.
Also, it can be seen that the MAPE metric, which expresses
the percentage deviation according to the actual value of
data, is approximately 4.2% and 2.5% for h and b param-
eters for all of the training set, respectively. For this reason,
the developed ANN model can be utilized for designing
different column designs, which have unknown values for
output variables, through ANNs made pretty close predic-
tions to data models by small deviating from actual opti-
mum data.
As concerns the test designs, the defined error metrics
were also measured in terms of b and h outputs together
with calculated total cost values, where the differences
between actual and predicted values were provided at
quite small rates for each output parameter. While all of
the combinations within test data were investigated, a
result can be extracted related that the prediction model
is also extremely successful concerning unknown column
information (Tables 6 and 7). Also, it can be expressed
that the prediction model can be accepted as a very
efficient tool due to that the total cost amounts could be
also directly calculated via the predicted output values
by deviating with a pretty low ratio as almost 0.24.
Additionally, if these expressions must be stated, for
several test designs, which exceed the design limitations
(Table 3), the ANNs model can carry out the desired
prediction process for each output parameter besides total
cost. Also, all of the success, efficiency and convergence
performance of the prediction process are shown in
Figs. 4 and 5.
123

As a result of the current study, both optimum values of
output parameters and objective function as the minimum
total cost can be directly and rapidly found through the
usage of an advanced prediction model, which was gen-
erated with ANNs. In that case, an iterative optimization
process was not needed to find the optimum design of
different columns. This tool provides the detection of the
required values for parameters to pre-design of column
structures, too. For this respect, besides these advantages,
both cost and time efficiency statements can be made
possible for the defined optimization processes.
Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed
during the current study are available from the corresponding author
on reasonable request.The authors declare that they have no known
competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1. Lertpalangsunti N, Chan CW, Mason R, Tontiwachwuthikul P
(1999) A toolset for construction of hybrid intelligent forecasting
systems: Application for water demand prediction. Artif Intell
Eng 13(1):21–42
2. Msiza IS, Nelwamondo FV, Marwala T (2008) Water demand
prediction using artificial neural networks and support vector
regression. J Comput 3(11):1
3. Brentan BM, Luvizotto E Jr, Herrera M, Izquierdo J, Pérez-
Garcı́a R (2017) Hybrid regression model for near real-time urban
water demand forecasting. J Comput Appl Math 309:532–541
4. Zubaidi SL, Ortega-Martorell S, Al-Bugharbee H, Olier I,
Hashim KS, Gharghan SK, Kot P, Al-Khaddar R (2020) Urban
water demand prediction for a city that suffers from climate
change and population growth: gauteng province case study.
Water 12(7):1885
5. Hu W, Xiao X, Xie D, Tan T, Maybank S (2004) Traffic accident
prediction using 3-D model-based vehicle tracking. IEEE Trans
Veh Technol 53(3):677–694
6. Sikka S (2014) Prediction of road accidents in Delhi using back
propagation neural network model. Int J Comput Sci Eng Technol
(IJCSET) 5(08):798–804
7. Wenqi L, Dongyu L, Menghua Y (2017) A model of traffic
accident prediction based on convolutional neural network, In:
2017 2nd IEEE international conference on intelligent trans-
portation engineering (ICITE), pp. 198–202
8. Huang HC, Chang YL, Lan TH, Chiu HJ, Liu WM, Lee TJF
(2008) Prediction of optimal lithium doses for Taiwanese psy-
chiatric patients. J Clin Pharm Ther 33(2):115–121
9. Grossi E, Podda GM, Pugliano M, Gabba S, Verri A, Carpani G,
Buscema M, Casazza G, Cattaneo M (2014) Prediction of optimal
warfarin maintenance dose using advanced artificial neural net-
works. Pharmacogenomics 15(1):29–37
10. McDonald JF, Mezencev R, Long TQ, Benigno B, Bonta I, Del
Priore G (2015) Accurate prediction of optimal cancer drug
therapies from molecular profiles by a machine-learning algo-
rithm. J Clin Oncol 33(15_suppl):e22182–e22182. https://doi.org/
10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e22182
11. Huang C, Mezencev R, McDonald JF, Vannberg F (2017) Open
source machine-learning algorithms for the prediction of optimal
cancer drug therapies. PLoS ONE 12(10):e0186906
123
Neural Computing and Applications
12. Koo C, Hong T, Hyun C (2011) The development of a con-
struction cost prediction model with improved prediction capac-
ity using the advanced CBR approach. Expert Syst Appl
38(7):8597–8606
13. Magdum SK, Adamuthe AC (2017) Construction cost prediction
using neural networks. ICTACT J Soft Comput 8(1):1549–1556
14. Shutian F, Tianyi Z, Ying Z (2017) Prediction of construction
projects’ costs based on fusion method. Eng Comput
34(7):2396–2408
15. Chakraborty D, Elhegazy H, Elzarka H, Gutierrez L (2020) A
novel construction cost prediction model using hybrid natural and
light gradient boosting. Adv Eng Inform 46:101201. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101201
16. Yucel M, Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM, Sevgen S (2019) Estimation of
optimum tuned mass damper parameters via machine learning.
J Build Eng 26:100847
17. Yucel M, Kayabekir AE, Nigdeli SM, Bekdaş G (2020) Optimum
design of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) beams for
shear capacity via machine learning methods: optimum predic-
tion methods on advance ensemble algorithms–bagging combi-
nations. In: Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM, Yücel M (eds) Artificial
intelligence and machine learning applications in civil, mechan-
ical, and industrial engineering. IGI Global, pp 85–103. https://
doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0301-0.ch005
18. Yucel M, Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM (2021) Decision-making model
based multilayer perceptrons for estimation of optimum design
properties for truss structure. Challenge 7(4):170–179
19. Bekdaş G, Yücel M, Nigdeli SM (2021) Estimation of optimum
design of structural systems via machine learning. Front Struct
Civ Eng 15(6):1441–1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-
0774-0
20. Yücel M, Nigdeli SM, Kayabekir AE, Bekdaş G (2021) Opti-
mization and artificial neural network models for reinforced
concrete members. In: Carbas S, Toktas A, Ustun D (eds) Nature-
inspired metaheuristic algorithms for engineering optimization
applications. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 181–199. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6773-9_9
21. Yücel M, Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM, Kayabekir AE (2021) An
artificial intelligence-based prediction model for optimum design
variables of reinforced concrete retaining walls. Int J Geomech
21(12):04021244
22. Camp CV, Assadollahi A (2015) CO2 and cost optimization of
reinforced concrete footings subjected to uniaxial uplift. J Build
Eng 3:171–183
23. Paya-Zaforteza I, Yepes V, Hospitaler A, Gonzalez-Vidosa F
(2009) CO2-optimization of reinforced concrete frames by sim-
ulated annealing. Eng Struct 31(7):1501–1508
24. Yepes V, Gonzalez-Vidosa F, Alcala J, Villalba P (2012) CO
2-optimization design of reinforced concrete retaining walls
based on a VNS-threshold acceptance strategy. J Comput Civ
Eng 26(3):378–386
25. Arama ZA, Kayabekir AE, Bekdaş G, Geem ZW (2020) CO2 and
cost optimization of reinforced concrete cantilever soldier piles: a
parametric study with harmony search algorithm. Sustainability
12(15):5906
26. Yeo D, Potra FA (2015) Sustainable design of reinforced concrete
structures through CO2 emission optimization. J Struct Eng
141(3):B4014002
27. Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM (2016) Optimum design of reinforced
concrete columns employing teaching learning-based optimiza-
tion. Chall J Struct Mech 2(4):216–219
28. Bekdaş G, Nigdeli SM (2015) Optimization of reinforced con-
crete columns subjected to uniaxial loading. In: Lagaros ND,
Papadrakakis M (eds) Engineering and applied sciences opti-
mization. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 399–412.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18320-6_21
Neural Computing and Applications
29. Bekdas G, Nigdeli SM (2014) The optimization of slender rein-
forced concrete columns. PAMM 14(1):183–184
30. Nigdeli SM, Bekdas G, Kim S, Geem ZW (2015) A novel har-
mony search based optimization of reinforced concrete biaxially
loaded columns. Struct Eng Mech Int J 54(6):1097–1109
31. Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic
optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation
76(2):60–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/003754970107600201
32. ACI Committee. Building code requirements for structural con-
crete (ACI 318-05) and commentary (ACI 318R-05)
33. Han J, Kamber M (2006) Data mining: concepts and techniques,
2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, California
34. Olivas ES, Guerrero JDM, Sober MM, Benedito JRM, López AJS
(eds) (2009) Handbook of research on machine learning appli-
cations and trends: algorithms, methods, and techniques. IGI
Global, Hershey, New York
35. Sarle WS (1994) Neural networks and statistical models. In:
Proceedings of the nineteenth annual sas users group
International conference, April 1994. Cary-USA, SAS Institute,
pp. 1538–1550
36. Chou JS, Lin CW, Pham AD, Shao JY (2015) Optimized artificial
intelligence models for predicting project award price. Autom
Constr 54:106–115
37. MATLAB Mathworks Matlab (2018a) Neural net fitting, https://
www.mathworks.com/ help/deeplearning/ref/neuralnetfitting-
app.html, last accessed 2021/11/01.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
123