Shear Strength Prediction of Reinforced-Concrete Beams Based On Fuzzy Theory

Structures and Buildings
Volume 169 Issue SB5

Shear strength prediction of
reinforced-concrete beams
based on fuzzy theory
Choi, Sim and Kim
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Structures and Buildings 169 May 2016 Issue SB5
Pages 357372 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.14.00128
Paper 1400128
Received 05/12/2014
Accepted 16/10/2015
Published online 18/12/2015
Keywords: beams & girders/buildings, structures & design/
concrete structures
ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

1
&
Kyoung-Kyu Choi PhD
3
&
Hee-Seung Kim MD
Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Soongsil University, Seoul,

Korea (corresponding author: kkchoi@ssu.ac.kr)
Graduate Student, School of Architecture, Soongsil University, Seoul,

Korea
2
&
Woo-Chang Sim MD
Graduate Student, School of Architecture, Soongsil University, Seoul,

Korea
An alternative analytical method based on fuzzy theory was developed for the accurate evaluation of the shear
strength of reinforced-concrete (RC) beams. In total, 1014 experimental results of shear tests, covering a wide range of
design parameters of simply supported RC slender and deep beams, were used for training and validation of the
proposed fuzzy-based model. Bayesian analysis was performed to determine the input parameters used in the fuzzy
model and a data distribution index was developed to evaluate the evenness of the training data distribution.
A model based on fuzzy rules and using fuzzy membership functions was developed and the strengths predicted by
the proposed model were compared with those predicted by current design codes (ACI 318-11 and Eurocode 2). The
results showed that fuzzy set theory can properly address the complex interaction between various modelling
parameters and the fuzzy rule based model enhanced the prediction of shear strength.
Notation
a
B
d
E(u*)
Eux
f c
fvy
fy
i
j
k
l
Nj
qkj
R
T
vi
vp
shear span of concrete beam

Bayesian coefficient
effective depth of concrete beam
maximum expected utility without any new
information
maximum expected utility with new information
concrete compressive strength
yield strength of shear reinforcement
yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement
ith rule in fuzzy rule base
jth input parameter
kth fuzzy set
lth data interval
total number of fuzzy sets
shape parameter of bell-shaped membership
function
function of number of input parameters
total number of input parameters
output of ith rule in fuzzy-based model
shear strength of slender concrete beams developed
by fuzzy-based model
vpredicted
vtest
wkj
xkcj
i
A x
1.
predicted strength
shear strength from test results
top width of bell-shaped membership function
centre of bell-shaped membership function
weight of ith rule
root mean square prediction error
membership function of fuzzy set A x over

domain x
tension reinforcement ratio
shear reinforcement ratio
Introduction
Shear failure in reinforced-concrete (RC) beams is a complex

phenomenon that may be triggered by various different failure
mechanisms (Figure 1). Many experimental and theoretical
studies have been performed to investigate these mechanisms.
According to previous experimental results, the shear strength
of RC beams is affected mainly by the compressive strength of
concrete ( f c ), the tension reinforcement ratio (), the effective
depth (d) and the shear span/depth ratio (a/d) (Kani, 1964,
1967; Leonhardt and Walther, 1962; Mathey and Watstein,
Downloaded by [ UNIVERSITY OF MORATUWA] on [14/11/16]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
357


Choi, Sim and Kim
Diagonal tension failure
is a complex phenomenon that is affected by various failure

mechanisms and variables .
NA
Deterioration of
compression strut
Anchorage failure
Splitting crack
(a) Slender beam
Crushing or bearing failure
Shearcompression failure
NA
Bearing failure
(b) Deep beam
Figure 1. Various failure mechanisms of slender and deep RC

beams (NA = neutral axis)
1963; Mphonde, 1989; Shioya et al., 1989; Taylor, 1972). In

particular, the shear failure mechanism of concrete beams may
vary significantly according to the shear span/depth ratio
(Kani, 1964). The shear failure of slender concrete beams
(a/d 25) is caused mainly by diagonal tension cracking in
the compression zone (Figure 1(a)), whereas deep beams
(a/d < 25) fail in shearcompression (Figure 1(b)) (Kotsovos
and Pavlovic, 1998; Tureyen and Frosch, 2003; Zararis and
Papadakis, 2001).
Based on these fundamental shear failure mechanisms
observed in previous tests, various theoretical research studies
have been performed. Baant and Kim (1984) developed a
shear strength model based on fracture mechanics, which considers progressive shear failure propagation across concrete
beams and explains the experimental observation of decreasing
shear strength of concrete beams with increasing beam size.
Kotsovos and Pavlovic (1998) proposed a novel physical model
consisting of a concrete frame, concrete teeth and a tie, based
on the compressive force concept, which correctly describes the
compressive force flow in the cracked section. Zararis and
Papadakis (2001) developed an improved shear strength model,
based on the splitting failure mechanism of the compression
zone, observing the propagation of diagonal tensile cracking.
Collins and Mitchell (1986) developed a theoretical model that
could simultaneously consider force equilibrium and the influence of deformation on the shear strength of concrete, based
on modified compression field theory, which was developed
based on an experimental study of concrete panel tests. These
theoretical models have provided researchers with a better
understanding of the shear failure mechanisms observed in
experiments, but they were usually based on one or two failure
mechanisms. It is thus difficult to estimate the shear strength
of real concrete beams accurately because, as noted earlier and
illustrated in Figure 1, the shear failure of real concrete beams
358
In design practice, instead of these complex theoretical strength

models, simple design methods such as ACI 318-11 (ACI,
2011) and Eurocode 2 (EC2) (CEN, 2004) are commonly used
to estimate the shear strength of slender concrete beams. Strutand-tie models have been primarily used to estimate the shear
strength of deep beams because existing shear design methods
cannot be applied to deep beams with a/d < 25. Although the
existing design methods are convenient for use because of their
simple forms, most empirical strength equations do not accurately predict test results over a wide range of design parameters because the existing shear design methods were
developed with a limited range of experimental variables (see
Table 1 and Figure 2).
A more robust modelling technique is thus needed to account
for the dependence of shear strength on a number of interacting variables and the inherent uncertainty (randomness, vagueness and ambiguity) in shear modelling and definitions. In the
present study, an alternative design method, using fuzzy
theory, was developed to predict the shear strength of both
slender (a/d 25) and deep (a/d < 25) RC beams. Fuzzy
theory is based on the principles of intelligent learning from
examples of previous test data (Jang, 1993).
2.
Fuzzy theory
Researchers have demonstrated the application of fuzzy theory

to a wide range of engineering problems and complex systems,
including the evaluation of construction costs (Chang et al.,
1997), rainfallrunoff prediction (Xiong et al., 2001) and
early-age autogenous shrinkage of concrete (Nehdi and
Soluman, 2012). Sugeno and Kang (1988) proposed the use
of fuzzy theory for the purpose of structure identification
in buildings and civil infrastructure. Bezdek et al. (1986) also
verified the applicability of fuzzy theory to account for probabilistically unqualified data and vaguely understood failure
modes.
The reason why fuzzy theory is applicable to various engineering problems is as follows. Engineering problems usually have
inherent uncertainty and ambiguity in the modelling parameters and thus information uncertainty and lack of human
knowledge may need to be considered (Ross, 2010). In the
shear problem of concrete beams, the definition of modelling
parameters may not be clear and precise because the measurement of some parameters used in the estimation of concrete
shear strength is difficult. Indeed, many researchers have questioned the suitability of the concept that crack propagation in
concrete can be explained on the basis of the stress level. The
concrete cracking angle is an important parameter to explain
shear failure, but there is no generally adopted method for its
measurement.


Choi, Sim and Kim
Design code
Shear strength model
EC2 (CEN, 2004)
Vn Vrd;c Vrd;s
Vrd;c CRd;c k100f c0 1=3 bd 0035k3=2 fc0 1=2 bd
Vrd;s Av fvy cot z=s
z 09d
45
f c in MPa
CRd,c = 018/c (c = 15 for concrete)
k = 1 + (200/d )1/2 2 (d in mm)
Av = cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement
fvy = yield strength of shear reinforcement
Vn Vc Vs
ACI 318-11 (ACI, 2011)
Vc 0158 fc0 1=2 bd 172v

or Vc = 0167( f c )1/2 bd
Vs = Avfvy d/s
fc in MPa
vu = shear force
Mu = flexural moment
vu d
bd
Mu
Table 1. Current shear design codes for concrete beams
vn = vc + vs
280
20
10
280
20
10
042
0
0
a/d 25, slender beams
30
vtest /vpredicted
vtest /vpredicted
30
042
0
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Compressive strength, f 'c: MPa
10
Shear span to depth ratio, a/d
(a) ACI 318-11
CRd,c = 018 /c, c = 15
30
240
240
vtest /vpredicted
vtest /vpredicted
z = 09d = 45
20
10
k = 1 + 200/d 2
20
10
082
082
0
0
0
a/d 25, slender beams
30
20 40 60 80 100 120 140

10
(b) EC2
Figure 2. Prediction of shear strength of concrete beams

according to existing shear design codes ACI 318-11 (ACI, 2011)
and EC2 (CEN, 2004)
359

Choi, Sim and Kim
Fuzzy sets, defined by the degree of membership, can represent

non-random uncertainty due to fuzziness, vagueness and/or
ambiguity (Klir, 2006). Various methods for establishing
membership functions have been developed and used according to the complexity level and information characteristics.
Additionally, automated methods such as inductive reasoning and clustering techniques can provide additional practical
procedures to develop membership functions (Bezdek, 1981;
Kim and Russel, 1993; Ross, 2010). The mathematical representations and operations of fuzzy theory can be found elsewhere (Ross, 2010; Wang and Mendel, 1992).
The membership function of a fuzzy set A
over a domain X is

denoted A . For each x [ X, the value A x, which ranges

between zero and one, is the degree of membership of x to the
fuzzy set A . Among various types of membership functions
(e.g. Gaussian, triangular, bell-shaped), the bell-shaped membership function was used in the present study.
4
3
vu : MPa
While classical probability theory is based on classical sets that

can determine whether an arbitrary element is a member of a
set, fuzzy theories use fuzzy sets without deterministic membership and sharp boundaries. Fuzzy sets and theories have
been proposed to overcome the shortcomings of classical probability theory in representing subjective uncertainty (Ross,
2010; Zadeh, 1965). In a fuzzy set, the membership of any
element is not affirmed or denied but is quantified by the
degree of membership, which can be useful for addressing the
inherent uncertainty in many engineering problems (Jang
et al., 1997; Klir, 2006).
vc1 =
Set I
Set II
f 'c < 70 MPa
f 'c 70 MPa
1 '
f
6 c
vc2 =
70
6
vc1
vc2
1
0
10
30
50
70
90
(a)
110
10
Degree of membership

08
MF1
MF2
06
04
02
0
10
30
50
70
90
110

(b)
Figure 3. Conceptual diagram illustrating membership functions

used in (a) classical sets and (b) fuzzy sets in concrete shear
problem
Thus
1:
A xj
k
2qk

j

1 xj xkcj =wkj
where xkcj , wkj and qkj are the parameters representing the
centre, the top width and the shape of the membership function, respectively, defining the kth fuzzy set defined over the
jth input parameter of x.
Figure 3 shows a conceptual diagram explaining the membership function used in fuzzy sets in the concrete shear problem.
In design code ACI 318-11 (ACI, 2011), the shear strength of
RC beams is defined according to concrete compressive
strength: for concrete strength less than 70 MPa (set I), the
shear strength is defined as vc1 = 1/6( f c )1/2 (in MPa); when the
concrete strength is equal to or greater than 70 MPa (set II), it
is defined as vc2 = 1/6(70)1/2 (in MPa). Thus, in the ACI model,
when f c < 70 MPa, the shear strength is affected exclusively by
vc1 between vc1 and vc2, and the opposite for f c 70 MPa. This
is a common feature in classical shear strength models based
on deterministic classical sets. However, even for high strength,
360
the increasing trend of shear strength according to concrete

strength, as shown by vc1 = 1/6( f c )1/2, is reasonably expected to
partially affect shear strength.
In the ACI shear strength model, for a given concrete strength,
the membership of concrete strength to sets I and II is fixed to
100% or zero (i.e. all or nothing), and only one shear strength
contribution between vc1 and vc2 is used. In fuzzy theory, on
the other hand, multiple memberships (e.g. MF1 and MF2,
shown in Figure 3(b)) to different sets are allowed; thus, in the
concrete shear problem, shear strength contributions (or fuzzy
rules) of both high and low concrete strength work simultaneously in the determination of shear strength. Additionally,
if different membership functions are used for different input
variables (e.g. compressive strength f c , tension reinforcement
ratio , effective depth d ), the cross-correlation effect on
output (shear strength prediction) for various combinations
of input variables can be considered, which cannot be
captured using classical sets (Figure 3(a)). Fuzzy theory is thus
a good candidate to explain the complicated shear failure of
concrete, affected by various input variables and failure
mechanisms.


Choi, Sim and Kim
3.
4.
Determination of input parameters using

Bayesian method
To apply fuzzy theory in engineering problems, generally, the

modelling parameters (input parameters) need to be determined first. In fact, in the concrete shear problem, the major
influencing variables affecting concrete shear strength are well
known, based on previous experimental and theoretical
studies. However, in this study, a more refined method to determine input parameters was used, without any prejudice.
According to Diebolt and Robert (1994) and Carlin and Chib
(1995), analytical techniques using Bayesian modelling with
the aid of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods can examine
the significance of all potential parameters affecting the
phenomenon (Carlin and Chib, 1995; Neal, 1993). These techniques evaluate the Bayesian coefficient (B), which explains
the significance of each input parameter based on the correlation of each input parameter (e.g. concrete compressive
strength, tension reinforcement ratio) and output parameter
(shear strength), as
2:
Bx Eux Eu
where B(x), called the value of information, is the Bayesian

coefficient, E(u*) is the maximum expected utility without any
new information and Eux is the maximum expected utility
with new information. The higher the Bayesian coefficient is,
the more significant the input parameters are. More detailed
background to the Bayesian method can be found elsewhere
(Ross, 2010).
Figure 4 shows the results of Bayesian analysis. In the analysis,
nine potential input parameters were examined the shear
span/depth ratio (a/d), effective depth (d), concrete compressive strength ( f c ), shear reinforcement ratio (v), tension
reinforcement ratio (), span length (a), the yield strength of
shear reinforcement ( fvy) and the yield strength of longitudinal
reinforcement ( fy). The significance analysis, based on the
Bayesian coefficient, showed that the parameters most affecting shear strength were a/d, d, f c , v, the smeared stirrup forces
(vfvy) ( fvy is the yield strength of shear reinforcement) and the
tension reinforcement ratio . As shown in Figure 4, the shear
span (a) and the yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement
( fy) were not significant because their Bayesian coefficients
were relatively low. This is because the concrete shear strength
could be affected by the smeared stirrup force (vfvy) instead of
the material strength ( fvy) itself. This was also confirmed in a
previous study on concrete shear failure (Zararis and
Papadakis, 2001). These results confirm previous experimental
results explaining the significance of each parameter. The parameters with high Bayesian coefficients (a/d, d, f c , vfvy and )
were thus used as input parameters in further fuzzy model
development in the present study. Only vfvy was used, not v
and vfvy, because vfvy is evidently more appropriate in shear
strength evaluations than v.
Division of data into training and testing

datasets
The total dataset was divided into two separate groups for
training and testing: the fuzzy model was developed using the
training dataset only and was verified using the testing dataset
only. According to Ross (2010), finally developed fuzzy models
are known to be significantly affected by the selected training
datasets and their predictions are highly dependent on the data
distribution of the training dataset. In this study, a data distribution index (DI) was developed to evaluate the evenness
of the data distribution and an evaluation of the DI based
on random data division is presented in the Appendix. The
process used to evaluate the DI was as follows.
4.1
Step 1: Data division into training and testing

datasets
The training and testing datasets were first randomly divided.
The numbers of training and testing datasets were intentionally
set as 614 and 400.
4.2
Step 2: Normalisation of the dataset for each input

parameter
For a random division of training and testing datasets, Table 2
lists the numbers of total data (ntotal,jl ) and training data (ntr,jl )
in the lth normalised data interval for the jth input parameter.
As shown in the table, the data were not evenly distributed in
each interval for either the total dataset or the training dataset.
However, the two datasets showed similar distributions to
some extent.
It is reasonably expected that when the number of training
datasets (ntr,jl ) in each data interval is much less than that in
the total dataset (ntotal,jl ), a fuzzy model based on the training
dataset cannot properly capture (or experience) the relationship
between input and output parameters, resulting in a biased
prediction. In contrast, when the training data are relatively or
absolutely sufficient for a given data interval, this is beneficial
in developing reliable fuzzy models (Ross, 2010).
4.3
Step 3: Evaluation of data distribution index for

each parameter (DIjl ) and data distribution index
for the whole training dataset (DI)
In this study, for each data interval and input parameter, the
data evenness was defined using ratio ntr,jl/ntotal,jl
3a:
DI jl 1 ntr; jl =ntotal; jl
However, if the number (ntr,jl ) in each training data interval

was absolutely large, the DI was set to zero. Likewise, if ntr,jl
was relatively large, the DI was set to zero.
3b:
If ntr; jl . Na or ntr; jl . a ntotal; jl then DI jl 0
361

12
vtest /vpredicted
12
B = 1169
32
204
10
08
08
06
339
168
02
211
410
79 26
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
(a/d)/(a/dmax)
6 41
vtest /vpredicted
13
0 5
2
02
0
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
v /v,max
B = 64
vtest /vpredicted
10
06
0
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
a/amax
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
(e)
(f)
12
B = 04
147
33
366
63
04
4
0
02
0 0102030405 06070809
f vy /f vy,max
(g)
47
08 505
06
23
B = 03
10
124 51
9 146
120
161
/max
02
0
(vf vy) /(vf vy,max)
12
04
42 5 1 1 0 1 1
301
150
02 15
313
02
06
02
08 510
06
98
04
10
04
04
82
169
08
46 27 6 10 3
552
08
B = 426
10
(d)
12
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
(c)
705
06
04
16 6
12
145
63
08
27
f 'c /f 'c,max
B = 459
10
58 36 10
d /dmax
12
151
06
64
363
281
(b)
B = 536
739
02
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
(a)
08
140
06
04
17
02
0
12
13
04
46 28 8 13 4
B = 744
109
10
08
04
10
12
B = 812
211
10
172
06

Choi, Sim and Kim
(h)
0 0 0
0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
f y /f y,max
(i)
Figure 4. Significance evaluation using Bayesian analysis for

potential input parameters (B = Bayesian coefficient)
3c:
If ntr; jl Na and ntr; jl a ntotal; jl then

DI jl 1 ntr; jl =ntotal; jl
where Na is defined as 10% of the total data number for a

given data interval and input parameter, empirically, and a is
defined as 05, empirically.
Thus, for each training data interval and input parameter, a
smaller DIjl is better than a higher one. Finally, the DI for
entire training dataset was defined as a single index using the
summation of DIjl values
4:
DI
XX
j
362
DI ji
For the arbitrary data division shown in Table 2, the DI for

entire training dataset was calculated to be 1613.
4.4
Step 4: Repetition of steps 1 to 3 and final data

division
To obtain a better training dataset, random data division in
step 1, data normalisation in step 2 and evaluation of the DI
in step 3 can be repeated. It is recommended that these steps
are repeated at least five times. Then, for the data division with
the smallest DI value, the training and testing datasets are
finally determined. According to Ross (2010), even though the
adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (Anfis) model theoretically works for testing data beyond the range of the training
data, such extrapolative predictions may cause significant

Normalised
interval
0001 (l = 1)
0102 (l = 2)
0203 (l = 3)
0304 (l = 4)
0405 (l = 5)
0506 (l = 6)
0607 (l = 7)
0708 (l = 8)
0809 (l = 9)
0910 (l = 10)
Total

Choi, Sim and Kim
Number of specimens in total dataset, ntotal,jl
Number of specimens in training dataset, ntr, jl
f c ( j = 1)
( j = 2)
vfvy ( j = 3)
d ( j = 4)
a/d ( j = 5)
f c ( j = 1)
( j = 2)
vfvy ( j = 3)
d ( j = 4)
a/d ( j = 5)
0
281
363
140
64
109
27
16
6
8
1014
15
150
301
169
161
120
82
4
7
5
1014
705
145
63
46
27
6
10
3
5
4
1014
17
211
410
211
79
26
6
41
0
13
1014
32
204
172
339
168
46
28
8
13
4
1014
0
177
213
81
38
74
16
5
4
6
614
11
88
184
111
92
66
51
2
4
5
614
420
87
45
28
16
4
6
2
3
3
614
12
125
238
134
54
20
3
21
0
7
614
21
128
107
204
91
30
20
6
5
2
614
Table 2. Distribution of selected datasets
errors. It is thus recommended to reduce the number of extrapolative cases as far as possible.
Development of fuzzy model for predicting shear
strength
In the present study, to evaluate the shear strength of RC
beams, adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system techniques were used by combining a neural network (Hopfield,
1982; Hopfield and Tank, 1986; Yamakawa, 1992) and a fuzzy
inference system (Sugeno and Kang, 1988; Takagi and Sugeno,
1985). Additionally, the Anfis, suggested by Jang (1993), was
used to optimise design parameters for Sugeno systems, composed of multiple linear functions (Takagi and Hayashi, 1991;
Takagi and Sugeno, 1983). These techniques are used to
implement human learning ability and human decisionmaking skills.
the following ifthen rule (Takagi and Hayashi, 1991; Takagi

and Sugeno, 1983).
5.
5:
f c0 [
Af ; [
A ; v fvy [
A v fvy
If
d [
A d and a=d [
A a=d
then vi ai f c0 bi ci v fvy di d ei a=d fi
k
where A f , A
A a=d are the kth fuzzy sets (k = 1,
, A
f , A and

v vy d
2, Nj ) defined on the fuzzy domains of concrete compressive strength f c , tension reinforcement ratio , the smeared
stirrup force vfvy, effective depth d and shear span/depth ratio
a/d, respectively. Nj is the total number of fuzzy sets defined
over the jth input parameter. Equation 5 represents the ith rule
in the fuzzy rule base. Next, ai, bi, ci, di, ei and fi are known as
Figure 5 shows the structure of the Anfis model (Jang, 1993)

used in this study. The first layer contains the input parameters
determined in Section 3, based on Bayesian analysis. The
second layer is the development process of membership functions. Thus, the type and number of membership functions for
each input parameter are determined. In this study, a bellshaped membership function was used, as presented in
Equation 1, and two membership functions (MF1 and MF2)
were used for each input parameter, as shown in layer 2 in
Figure 5. Additionally, all modelling parameters were normalised by the maximum values of each parameter in the database, based the work of on Berenji and Khedkar (1992), to
avoid the influence of numerical weights on the learning
process.
consequent coefficients that define the output side of the ith
The third step in Anfis is to establish the fuzzy rule base,

which describes the output (shear strength) defined for each
fuzzy set. The exemplar in the fuzzy rule base is defined using
where T represents the total number of input parameters (here,

T = 5), R is the number of fuzzy rules (here, R = 32) and a
function of the number of input variables (T ) and Nj is the
rule in the fuzzy rule base.

By considering the T-norm (minimum-multiplication) operator
() to capture the influence of the interaction between input
parameters (Zadeh, 1965) on the output, the weight (i) of the
ith rule in the fuzzy rule base can be computed as

2qk

j

1= 1 xj xkcj =wkj

i
2qk

PR32 QT5

k
k j
1=
1
x

x
=w

j
cj
j
i1
j1
QT5
j1
6:
for
i 1; 2; . . .R 32
363


Choi, Sim and Kim
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Layer 4
Layer 5
Input
parameters of
training data
Input
membership
function
Fuzzy
rule
Predicted shear
strength
Minimisation of
prediction error
Sugeno Equation vi (Equation 5)
MF1
f 'c
MF2
T-norm operator i (Equation 6)
MF1
v1, 1
v2, 2
MF2
Learning process
7
8
Minimisation of
prediction error
() (Equation 8)
vp
Predicted shear
strength (Equation 7)
MF1
v f vy
Root mean square prediction error
MF2
25
MF1
d
26
v31, 31
v32, 32
27
MF2
28
29
MF1
a/d
30
31
MF2
Additional error
minimisation
process
Updating
learning rate
()
32
Updating rule-base parameters (gradient descent updating method)
Figure 5. Architecture of Anfis for the fuzzy model and the

learning process to establish optimal rule bases
number of fuzzy sets, defined on each input domain (see layer

3 in Figure 5). Then, the shear strength (vp) of RC beams can
be computed using the fuzzy rule base as
PR32
7:
i vi
vp Pi1
R32
i
i1
where vi is the output of the ith rule in the fuzzy rule base and
i is the weight of the ith rule in the fuzzy rule base
Equations 5 and 6; see layer 4 of Figure 5).
The learning process aimed at defining the unknown parameters for the fuzzy-based model and was performed iteratively to obtain the optimal premise parameters (membership
function parameters xkcj , wkj and qkj and the consequence coefficients ai, bi, ci, di, ei and fi) until the root mean square (RMS)
364
prediction error () of the shear strength becomes a target

RMS prediction error (here 10105)
PN
8:
n1
vtestn vpn 2
N
!1=2
where vtestn is the predicted shear strength for the nth dataset,
vpn is the shear strength of the nth dataset from the database
and N is the total number of training datasets. During the
iterative calculation in each training epoch, the premise parameters describing the fuzzy sets are updated according to a
gradient-based updating scheme. The RMS prediction error
and gradient updating scheme are presented by Fan and Yuan
(2001). In the Anfis model, it is important to determine the
value of the learning rate () because the learning rate affects
the result of the final output considerably. In this study, the

Investigator (as listed

in KCI (2014))
Moody (1954)
Kani (1967)
Papadakis (1996)
Acharya (1965)
Mathey and Watstein (1963)
Morrow (1957)
Pendyala (2000)
Kani (1979)
Tan (1999)
Taub (1960)
Kani (1964)
Berg (1962)
Mphonde (1989)
Bhal (1968)
Mattock (1969)
Taylor (1972)
Walraven (1978)
Chana (1981)
Ahmad (1996)
Kim (1999)
Kulkarni (1998)
Ahmad (1995)
Cossio (1960)
Leonhardt and Walther
(1962)
Krefeld (1966)
Foster (1998)
Clark (1951)
Smith (1982)
Rogowsky (1986)
Oh (2001)
Zararis (1999)
Karayiannis (1999)
Angelakos (2001)
Bresler (1963)
Xie (1994)
Yoon (1996)
Collins (1999)
Elzanaty (1986)
Placas (1971)
Mau (1989)
Rodriguez (1959)
Delbaiky (1982)
Kriski (1996)
Anderson (1989)
Shin (1999)
Cho (2003)
Tan (1997)

Choi, Sim and Kim
Number of
specimens
f c : MPa
b: mm
d: mm
21
54
27
4
25
37
6
10
3
1
11
30
9
12
7
15
3
27
18
4
14
4
5
32
173367
209315
141526
368572
219305
138413
340870
245298
374491
599
245303
225586
2261018
228291
162469
208321
274278
247417
661728
196
415462
428793
215367
282377
94
15
62
21
7
39
10
10
21
12
13
10
19
16
23
54
13
8
8
7
24
24
14
125484
152254
238483
513800
125 6241124
138476
152203
314389
161227
102
305
424432
200
455535
237736
120130
500
208249
140
235
26
200
260
210990
80300
925
211388
152305
457466
3771087
127
198216
360870
375
655
360988
169300
110925
200792
178267
178267
128481
152
272
161227
76102
203343
193288
152
305318
202314
120
260
289778
360
345
292338
406
345
520730
125
215
520730
125
215
646721
110
400448
h: mm
152178
262533
305610
151612 1321097 1521220
140200
175350
200400
102
94121
127152
203
403
457
305308
353375
406
80
140
160
153
273
305
140
444
500
102
171
203
153
273
305
229
359
419
152
298
337
240 2971200 3241296
152
254
305
60400
139930 1501 000
200
125720
150750
60203
106356
121406
127
184208
254
100
250
300
102
152
178
102
178
204
152
252
303
50225
70600
80670
305533
7001200
381457
356
500600
560
254
281
1000
555
214254
750
1251000
305
305354
229381
368
300
400
406
250
250
500
a/d
: %
v: %
1534
1090
1540
1925
1538
0979
2050
1025
0611
24
3065
2849
36
2930
2751
3
3
3
2740
3040
3555
37
3060
1080
162435
258289
08180
206415
047305
057383
2040
18828
26
446
188280
43
232336
059129
103310
135
074083
173184
177664
108194
138
142
335
131464
0059
2385
0819
1224
1320
1922
0920
36
2835
29
3569
2733
3133
2531
3660
3451
0715
2439
2129
2226
2427
1525
1424
0324
080501
134242
098342
194
088113
129156
068137
147196
050101
179366
161454
24528
050136
060330
098416
109258
160266
192289
201
23231
377
38
2058
0025
0136
0122
0077
0015
0037
0027
0025
0008
0020
0081
0024
0016
0019
0084
018245
038113
020042
009019
039041
025181
02018
048
Table 3. Dimensions and properties of specimens in the total

dataset (continued on next page)
365

Investigator (as listed

in KCI (2014))
Hsiung (1985)
Mphonde (1984)
Johnson (1989)
Peng (1999)
Narayanan (1987)
Bresler (1996)
Swamy (1974)
Sarsam (1992)
McGormley (1996)
Kong (1998)
Roller (1990)
Tempos (2002)
Total

Choi, Sim and Kim
Number of
specimens
4
12
7
7
8
11
10
4
12
21
10
5
1014
f c : MPa
b: mm
43
152305
221830
150
364723
305
293330
280
306502
85
232267
152305
259294
76
404757
180
353567
203
604849
250
7241253 356457
358427
229457
1051253
50612
d: mm
h: mm
419
298
539
273
126130
457462
95132
235
419
292346
559762
426851
701200
457
337
610
320
150
494499
124172
270
508
328382
638870
486914
801296
a/d
: %
v: %
28
32
28
31
2531
4
3050
4
33
2533
2530
3
02890
182
336
25
27
20572
167234
197395
223351
303
166447
143631
10105
047664
021034
012040
008016
005029
017119
010020
006060
009
034
010026
008175
008033
0245
Table 3. Continued
optimum learning rate was determined from the following

ranges (step size = 0109, decreasing rate = 0109, increasing
rate = 1119).
used for the fuzzy model are summarised in Table 3. No specimen used in the training was used in testing the fuzzy rule
based model.
The updated premise parameters are then used to update a set

of consequence parameters for the next training epoch. The
training process continues until the target RMS prediction
error or a maximum number of training epochs are attained
(here, the number of epochs is 100; see layer 5 in Figure 5). In
the Anfis system, the weight factor of each fuzzy rule is
defined as the product of each membership value in the
premise part (Equation 5) and the final output is defined as
the weighted average of the consequence of each rule
(Equation 6). It is known that this updating process enables
the fuzzy rule based model to reduce the RMS prediction
error; thus the model can learn from examples in a more
robust manner compared with other empirical techniques
(Fan and Yuan, 2001). The whole learning process was
implemented in a Matlab (MathWorks, 1998) programming
environment.
When the RMS prediction error during training was reduced

to an acceptable tolerance, the parameters of the fuzzy rule
bases (Equation 5) and membership functions (Equation 1)
were determined and the relevant fuzzy model was developed.
The initial and final fuzzy sets for concrete compressive
strength established by the learning algorithm are shown in
Figure 6, in which MF1 and MF2 indicate membership
functions.
6.
Model validation and discussion
For training and testing the fuzzy model, 1014 test specimens
reported to have failed in shear (no flexural failure) were used.
The specimens were simply supported and subjected to singlepoint loading at the midspan or two-point symmetric loadings.
In the 1014 test specimens, there were 646 slender beams
(a/d 25) and 368 deep beams (a/d < 25), and 509 and 505
specimens with and without shear reinforcement, respectively.
The test specimens covered a broad range of materials and geometric properties: 125 f c 1253 (MPa), 50 b 612 (mm),
70 d 1200 (mm), 028 a/d 90, 047 664 (%), 0 v
245 (%) and 179 fvy 844 (MPa). The dimensions and properties of the specimens from the literature (as cited in KCI (2014))
366
Table 4 shows the premise parameters of membership functions for compressive strength, tension reinforcement ratio, the
smeared stirrup force (amount of shear reinforcement), effective depth and shear span/depth ratio obtained from the training process. Table 5 presents the 32 rules forming the fuzzy
knowledge rule base established through the training process.
In Table 5, vi, f c , , v fvy and d are in MPa, MPa, %, MPa
and mm respectively. The shear strength (vp) of slender concrete beams was evaluated using Equations 57.
Figure 7 shows strength predictions by the fuzzy rule based
model. In the figure, the strength ratios of test results to predictions by the fuzzy-based model (vtest/vpredicted) have a mean
value of 101 and a standard deviation (SD) of 1399%. Thus,
the fuzzy-based model predicted the shear strength with consistent accuracy according to the design parameters concrete
compressive strength, reinforcement ratio, effective depth and
shear span/depth ratio. In contrast, as shown in Figure 2, the
current design codes show relatively large deviations in the
strength prediction of test specimens. ACI 318-11 (ACI, 2011)
overestimates the shear strength of specimens with high


Choi, Sim and Kim
compressive strength, low reinforcement ratio and large effective depth. Furthermore, the minimum value of vtest/vpredicted
by ACI 318-11 is 042, which indicates that the design code
might not ensure conservativeness in the shear design of
slender concrete beams. EC2 (CEN, 2004) shows almost the
same accuracy in strength prediction as ACI 318-11. For ACI
318-11 (ACI, 2011) and EC2 (CEN, 2004), the mean values of
vtest/vpredicted are 135 and 143 with SDs of 316% and 227%,
respectively.
Degree of membership
12
MF1
10
MF2
08
06
04
02
0
10
90
110
30
50
70
Figure 8 presents the variations in shear strength according to

the four primary modelling parameters. In Figures 8(a) and
8(b), the shear strength increases with increasing compressive
strength, as predicted by ACI 318-11 (ACI, 2011) and it
increases with increasing tension reinforcement ratio. However,
ACI 318-11 does not simulate the effect of the tension
reinforcement ratio because the ACI shear design method does
not take this parameter into account in the shear strength
equation. Figures 8(c) and 8(d) show that the fuzzy model correctly simulates the effect of the shear reinforcement ratio and
beam size, as also investigated in previous research (Baant
and Kim, 1984). The fuzzy rule based model clearly explains
the fundamental mechanics of slender RC beams with/without
shear reinforcement that failed in shear. These results and discussion demonstrate that the consideration of uncertainty in
structural modelling can significantly increase modelling
accuracy.
(a)
12
MF1
10
MF2
08
06
04
02
0
10
30
50
70
90
110

(b)
Figure 6. Bell-shaped fuzzy sets describing memberships

according to concrete compressive strength: (a) before training;
(b) after training
Membership functions
Compressive strength ( f c )
xc: MPa
4703
w: MPa
3622
q
2142
5705
14171
2050
xc: %
006
w: %
286
q
2138
323
571
2046
xc: MPa
030
w: MPa
012
q
2241
318
048
2223
xc: mm
46548
w: mm
49704
q
2066
38244
91788
2200
xc: mm
303
w: mm
165
q
2382
215
129
1634
1
A
f
2
A
f
Tension reinforcement ratio ()

A

A
Amount of shear reinforcement (vfvy)
1
A
v fvy
2
A
v fvy
Effective depth (d )
1
A
d
2
Ad
Shear span/depth ratio (a/d)
1
A
a=d
2
A
a=d
Table 4. Premise parameters of membership functions for

compressive strength f c , reinforcement ratio , amount of shear
reinforcement vfvy, effective depth d and shear span/depth
ratio a/d
367
f c ( j = 1)
( j = 2)
v fvy ( j = 3)
d ( j = 4)
a/d ( j = 5)
ai
bi
ci
di
ei
fi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
735105
296104
113104
462104
798105
301104
115104
449104
852
360
13910
491
224101
165
238
184
107104
604104
121104
544104
112104
630104
107104
526104
16010
176
372101
297101
123
429101
612
750101
283105
121104
346105
150104
311105
118104
350105
144104
355
513101
446101
822102
554101
101101
761102
161101
186105
105104
219105
748105
207105
114104
167105
609105
550
685101
935
177
214
796101
164
626102
334107
452106
182107
601106
200105
454105
424105
756105
693
405101
522101
418101
269101
261101
612101
655101
465107
114106
203106
815106
221106
400106
101105
237105
18410
419
23710
546
780101
597101
515101
959102
626105
281104
192104
941104
721105
290104
197104
941104
531
126
354
122
103101
174
318102
173
420105
213104
109104
418104
435105
218104
894105
380104
29510
191
366
149
630
381
309
122
956105
440104
144104
724104
981105
448104
143104
732104
880
134
303
198101
370
206
197
442101
683105
379104
724105
371104
704105
391104
642105
363104
352
232
505
137
113
205
674
750101
332104
136103
463104
222103
371104
140103
492104
224103
284
264101
605101
121
108
750101
425101
970101
197104
102103
270104
106103
209104
106103
242104
989104
123
733101
599101
841101
256
170101
313101
476101
k = 1, 2,,Nj; Nj is the total number of fuzzy sets defined over the jth input parameter; Nj = 2 for all parameters
Table 5. Fuzzy rules forming fuzzy knowledge rule base established through training process

Choi, Sim and Kim
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Fuzzy rules, vi

368
Membership functions, ka


Choi, Sim and Kim
25
25
SD 13.99%
SD 13.99%
20
158
15
vtest /vpredicted
vtest /vpredicted
20
10
055
05
158
15
10
0
0
20
40
60
055
05
0
80 100 120 140
002

25
25
SD 13.99%
006
008
SD 13.99%
20
158
15
vtest /vpredicted
vtest /vpredicted
20
10
055
05
0
004
Reinforcement ratio, : %
05
10
Effective depth, d: mm
158
15
10
055
05
0
15
2
4
6
8
10
Figure 7. Strength prediction obtained by current design

methods and fuzzy-based model
30
25
vu: MPa
14
= 336%
vfvy = 0375 MPa
20
02
15 3
33
3-3
15
0
0
20
40
60
80
04
Prediction by fuzzy model

ACI 318-11
Test results
02
0
100
2
(b)
18
vu: MPa
b30
b45
b60
12
b90
10
12
b1
08
09
'
c
f = 26 MPa d = 260 mm
= 196% a/d = 346
06

ACI 318-11
Test results
03
0
0
Tension reinforcement ratio, : %
(a)
15 b0
b4
f 'c = 27.6 MPa d = 368375 mm

v fvy = 0 MPa a/d = 379386
06

ACI 318-11
Test results
05
e4
08
d = 300 mm
a/d = 316
10
a4
10
11 3
b2
06
b4
f = 22.829.1 MPa v fvy = 0 MPa

= 128129%
a/d = 3
04

ACI 318-11
Test results
02
0
b3
'
c
Smeared stirrup force , v fvy: MPa
500
1000
Effective depth, d: mm
(c)
(d)
01
02
03
04
1500
Figure 8. Variation in shear strength according to primary

parameters: (a) Mphonde (1984); (b) Morrow (1957);
(c) Karayiannis (1999); (d) Bhal (1968)
369


Choi, Sim and Kim
vtest/vpredicted
Data division
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
DI
Number of
extrapolative cases
1613
1544
1568
1199
1243
8
8
11
16
77
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD: %
0583
0549
0537
0647
N.A.
1731
1589
3098
2781
N.A.
0997
1012
1007
1010
N.A.
1504
1399
1443
1937
N.A.
N.A., not applicable

Table 6. Shear strength prediction for different data division
cases
It is noted that the present study focused on the strength

prediction and analysis of existing concrete beams. However,
designers could also use the model developed in this study for
design purpose by constructing fuzzy rules (shown in Table 5)
and fuzzy membership functions (shown in Table 4).
7.
Model validation and discussion
An analytical method for predicting the shear strength of concrete beams was developed based on fuzzy theory (the adaptive
neuro fuzzy inference system (Anfis)). Bayesian analysis was
used to determine the input parameters of the fuzzy model.
In the analysis, it was found that concrete compressive
strength, tension reinforcement ratio, smeared stirrup force,
effective depth and shear span/depth ratio are the primary
parameters for modelling the shear behaviour of slender and
deep concrete beams with/without shear reinforcement.
Additionally, a rational method to evaluate the evenness of the
selected training data distribution was developed. A fuzzy rule
based model using fuzzy membership functions was developed
on the basis of the principles of intelligent learning from existing test data
For verification, a total of 1014 test specimens from a shear
dataset were used in training and testing the fuzzy model 614
were used for training and 400 for testing. This dataset covered
a wide range of materials and geometric properties. The proposed method is applicable to simply supported slender and
deep concrete beams with and without shear reinforcement
and yields acceptable accuracy in the prediction of shear
strength. The fuzzy-based model shows better accuracy in
strength prediction than current design codes such as ACI 31811 (ACI, 2011) and EC2 (CEN, 2004), indicating that the proposed model is able to address uncertainty and interactions
between modelling parameters. It can also explain the fundamental mechanics of shear failure as observed in previous
experimental studies. The findings are, however, limited to the
data range used in the model development.
370
Appendix: Example of data division and

evaluation of data distribution index
As an example, random data divisions were repeated five times
(cases 1 to 5). For each case, the data distribution index (DI)
was evaluated according to Equations 3 and 4. In addition,
extrapolative cases, the data ranges of which were beyond
those of the training data, were checked, as presented in
Table 6. For each data division, fuzzy models were developed
to evaluate the concrete shear strength. Mean values and standard deviations of the strength prediction ratio by the fuzzy
models are also presented. As shown in the table, generally, a
DI and fewer extrapolative cases yielded better strength predictions. The fuzzy model may cause a numerical error in the
strength prediction when the number of extrapolative cases is
excessively large (as in case 5).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant (13AUDP-B06608301) from the Architecture & Urban Development Research
Program, funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and
Transport of the Korean government.
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2011) ACI 318-11: Building
code requirements for structural concrete and commentary

(ACI 318R-11). ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Baant ZP and Kim J (1984) Size effect in shear failure of
longitudinally reinforced beams. ACI Journal 81(5):
456468.
Berenji HR and Khedkar P (1992) Learning and tuning fuzzy
logic controllers through reinforcements. IEEE
Transactions on Neural Networks 3(5): 724740.
Bezdek J (1981) Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective
Function Algorithms. Plenum, New York, NY, USA.
Bezdek JC, Grimball NT, Carson JM and Ross TJ (1986) Structural
failure determination with fuzzy sets. Civil Engineering
Systems 3(2): 8292.


Choi, Sim and Kim
Bhal NS (1968) ber den Einflu der Balkenhhe auf die
Klir GJ (2006) Uncertainty and Information: Foundations of
Schubtragfhigkeit von einfeldrigen Stahlbetonbalken mit

und ohne Schubbewehrung. Otto-Graf-Institut, Stuttgart,
Germany.
Carlin BP and Chib S (1995) Bayesian model choice via Markov
Chain Monte Carlo methods. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society Series B 57(3): 473484.
CEN (Comit Europen de Normalisation) (2004) EN 1992-1-1:
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1:
general rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels,
Belgium.
Chang NB, Chen YL and Chen HW (1997) A fuzzy
regression analysis for the construction cost estimation
of wastewater treatment plants (1) theoretical
development. Department of Environmental Engineering
32(4): 885899.
Collins MP and Mitchell D (1986) A rational approach to shear
design the 1984 Canadian code provisions. ACI Journal
83(6): 925933.
Diebolt J and Robert CP (1994) Estimation of finite mixture
distributions through Bayesian sampling. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society B 56(2): 363375.
Fan JY and Yuan YX (2001) On the Convergence of a New
LevenbergMarquardt Method. AMSS, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Technical Report, Beijing, PR China.
Hopfield J (1982) Neural networks and physical system
with emergent collective computational abilities.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79(8):
25542558.
Hopfield J and Tank D (1986) Computing with neural circuits: a
model. Science 233(4764): 625633.
Jang JSR (1993) Anfis: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference
system. IEEE Transactions on Systems 23(3): 665685.
Jang JSR, Su CT and Mizutani E (1997) Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft
Computing, A Computational Approach to Learning and
Machine Intelligence. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA.
Kani GNJ (1964) The riddle of shear failure and its solution.
ACI Journal 61(2): 441467.
Kani GNJ (1967) How safe are our large reinforced concrete
beams? ACI Journal 64(3): 128141.
Karayiannis CG and Chalioris CE (1999) Experimental
investigation of the influence of stirrup on the shear failure
mechanism of reinforced concrete beams. Proceedings of
the 13th Hellenic Conference on Concrete, Rethymnon,
Greece.
KCI (Korea Concrete Institute) (2014) KCI 103: Shear and
torsion technical committee KCI shear databank. KCI,
Seoul, Korea.
Kim CJ and Russel BD (1993) Automated generation of
membership functions and fuzzy rule using inductive
reasoning. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on
Industrial Fuzzy Control and Intelligent Systems, IFIS93,
Houston, TX, USA. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA,
pp. 9396.
Generalized Information Theory. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ,

USA.
Kotsovos MD and Pavlovic MN (1998) Ultimate Limit-Sate
Design of Concrete Structures: A New Approach. Thomas
Telford, London, UK.
Leonhardt F and Walther R (1962) DAfStb, Heft 151
Schubversuche an einfeldrigen stahlbetonbalken mit und
ohne schubbewehrung zur ermittlung der schubtragfhigkeit
und der oberen schubspannungsgrenze. Ernst & Sohn,
Berlin, Germany (in German).
Mathey RG and Watstein D (1963) Shear strength of
beams without web reinforcement containing deformed
bars of different yield strengths. ACI Journal 60(2):
183208.
MathWorks (1998) MATLAB. The Language of Technical
Computing. MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA.
Morrow J and Viest IM (1957) Shear strength of reinforced
concrete frame members without web reinforcement. ACI
Journal Proceedings 53(3): 833869.
Mphonde AG (1989) Use of stirrup effectiveness in shear
design of concrete beams. ACI Structural Journal 86(5):
541545.
Mphonde AG and Franz GC (1984) Shear tests of high- and
low-strength concrete beams without stirrups. ACI Journal
Proceedings 81(4): 350357.
Neal RM (1993) Probabilistic Inference Using Markov Chain
Monte Carlo Methods. University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada.
Nehdi ML and Soluman AM (2012) Artificial intelligence
model for early-age autogenous shrinkage of concrete.
ACI Journal 109(3): 353361.
Ross TJ (2010) Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications,
3rd edn,. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Shioya T, Iguro M, Nojiri Y, Akiayma H and Okada T (1989)
Shear Strength of Large Reinforced Concrete Beams,
Fracture Mechanics: Application to Concrete. American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA,
ACI SP-118.
Sugeno M and Kang GT (1988) Structure identification of fuzzy
model. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 28(1): 1533.
Takagi H and Hayashi I (1991) NN-driven fuzzy reasoning.
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 5(3):
191212.
Takagi T and Sugeno M (1983) Derivation of fuzzy control
rules from human operators control actions.
Proceedings of IFAC Symposium on Fuzzy Information,
Knowledge Representation and Decision Analysis,
Marseilles, France. pp. 5560.
Takagi T and Sugeno M (1985) Fuzzy identification of system
and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 15(1):
116132.
Taylor HPJ (1972) Shear strength of large beams. Journal of
Structural Engineering ASCE 98(11): 24732490.
371


Choi, Sim and Kim
Tureyen AK and Frosch RJ (2003) Concrete shear strength:
the first-order TakagiSugeno fuzzy system. Journal of

Hydrology 245(1): 196217.
Yamakawa T (1992) A fuzzy logic controller. Journal of
Biotechnology 24(1): 132.
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets, information and control.
Information and Control 8(3): 338353.
Zararis PD and Papadakis GC (2001) Diagonal shear failure and
size effect in RC beams without web reinforcement. Journal
of Structural Engineering ASCE 127(7): 733742.
another perspective. ACI Structural Journal 100(5):

609615.
Wang LX and Mendel JM (1992) Generating fuzzy
rules by learning from examples. IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 22(6):
14141427.
Xiong L, Shamseldin AY and OConnor KM (2001) A non-linear
combination of the forecasts of rainfallrunoff models by
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
372

Shear Strength Prediction of Reinforced-Concrete Beams Based On Fuzzy Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shear Strength Prediction of Reinforced-Concrete Beams Based On Fuzzy Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures and Buildings

Volume 169 Issue SB5

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers