PREDICTION OF ULTIMATE SHEAR STRENGTH OF REINFORCED-

CONCRETE DEEP BEAMS USING NEURAL NETWORKS

By A. Sanad1 and M. P. Saka,2 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This study explores the use of artificial neural networks in predicting the ultimate shear strength
of reinforced-concrete deep beams. One hundred eleven experimental data collected from the literature cover
the simple case of a simply supported beam with two point loads acting symmetrically with respect to the
centerline of the span. The data are arranged in a format such that 10 input parameters cover the geometrical
and material properties of the deep beam and the corresponding output value is the ultimate shear strength.
Among the available methods in the literature, the American Concrete Institute, strut-and-tie, and Mau-Hsu
methods were selected because of their accuracy and used to calculate the shear strength of each beam in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

set. Later, an artificial neural network is developed using two different software programs and the ultimate shear
strength of each beam is determined form these networks. It is found that the average ratio of actual and predicted
shear strength was 0.99 for the neural network, 2.08 for the American Concrete Institute method, 0.85 for the
strut-and-tie method, and 0.84 for the Mau-Hsu method. It is apparent that neural networks provide an efficient
alternative method in predicting the shear strength capacity of reinforced-concrete deep beams where several
equations exist, none of which produce an accurate result.

INTRODUCTION and Lu 1999). Among the methods available in the literature,

Reinforced-concrete deep beams are commonly used ele-
ments in a wide range of different types of structures, from
tall buildings to offshore gravity structures. The American
Concrete Institute (ACI) code 318-95 (clause 10.7.1) (ACI
1995) classifies the beam as a deep beam for flexure if the
clear-span/overall-depth ratio is <1.25 for simply supported
beams and 2.5 for continuous beams and as deep beams for
shear if the clear-span/effective-depth ratio is <5 for simply
supported beams loaded on one face and supported on the
opposite face so that compression struts can develop between
loads and supports.
The structural behavior of deep beams differs from that of
slender beams because of the small ratio between shear span
and depth. In contrast to slender beams, the response is char-
acterized by nonlinear strain distribution even in the elastic
range. The strength of deep beams with a normal amount of
longitudinal reinforcement is usually governed by shear, not
flexure. A significant amount of load is carried to supports by
a compression thrust joining the load and the reaction. This
compression in the diagonal direction combined with the ten-
sion along the beam bars constitutes the basis for the strut-
and-tie model. This tied arch action is recognized as the force-
transferring mechanism of deep beams. The failure of a deep
beam may occur because of crushing of a compression strut
or loss of a beam bar anchorage (Subedi 1986, 1988; ASCE-
ACI 1998; Shin et al. 1999; Tan and Lu 1999; Hwang et al.
2000). Unfortunately, no accurate theory exists for predicting
the ultimate shear strength of deep reinforced-concrete beams.
The great number of parameters that affect the beam strength
has led to a limited understanding of shear failure. These pa-
rameters include size effect; proportion, amount and arrange-
ment of tensile, compressive, and web reinforcement; shear
span to depth ratio; properties of concrete and steel; anchorage
of reinforcement into the supports; and size of bearing and
loading areas (Asin and Walraven 1995; ASCE-ACI 1998; Tan
1
Sr. Civ. Engr., Ministry of Housing, Municipal Affairs, P.O. Box 53,
Bahrain.
2
Prof., Civ. Engrg. Dept., Univ. of Bahrain, P.O. Box 32038, Isa Town,
Bahrain (corresponding author).
Note. Associate Editor: Julio Ramirez. Discussion open until Decem-
ber 1, 2001. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this
paper was submitted for review and possible publication on July 8, 1999;
revised February 1, 2001. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 7, July, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/01/
0007-0818–0828/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 21339.
818 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001
the strut-and-tie model constitutes a viable approach that is
adopted for design of reinforced-concrete deep beams by nu-
merous codes such as those of the Comité Euro-International
du Béton-Fédération International de la Précontrainte (CEB-
FIP), Paris, Cement and Concrete Association, London, and
Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont., Canada.
This study explores the feasibility of using a multilayer
feed-forward artificial neural network to predict the ultimate
shear strength of reinforced-concrete deep beams. A neural
network is an interconnected network of processing elements
that has the ability to be trained to map a given input into the
desired output. If the training data use the results of experi-
ments carried out on reinforced-concrete beams, the neural
network gives the shear strength capacity without making any
assumption about the behavior of the beam. Neural network
modeling techniques have been successfully applied to differ-
ent areas of structural engineering. Some of these were on
structural analysis and design (Vanluchene and Roufei 1990;
Hajela and Berke 1991; Arslan and Ince 1994; Chuang et al.
1998; Jenkins 1998; Waszczyszyn 1998) and some others were
on structural damage assessment (Wu et al. 1992; Buenfeld
and Hassanein 1998). The application of neural networks in
structural mechanics is described in Topping and Bahreinine-
jad (1997). In this paper, an artificial neural network is devel-
oped for the prediction of the shear strength of reinforced-
concrete deep beams and the results obtained are compared
with the experimental values and with those determined from
the ACI code method, strut-and-tie method (Wen 1993), and
Mau-Hsu method (Mau and Hsu 1989). It is shown that the
performance of the neural network in predicting the shear
strength is much more accurate than the methods considered.
It is noticed that, although the average value of the predicted
strength to the actual strength ratio is around 0.48 in the ACI
code method, the same ratio is only 0.97 in the neural network.
ULTIMATE SHEAR STRENGTH OF
REINFORCED-CONCRETE DEEP BEAMS
Accurate prediction of the ultimate strength of reinforced-
concrete deep beams is of prime importance for developing a
reliable method for their design. For this purpose, many ex-
periments have been carried out to investigate the behavior of
such beams. The data collected from these experiments con-
stitute the basis of some of the expressions available in the
literature for analytically predicting the ultimate shear strength
of these beams (Ramakrishnan and Ananthanarayana 1968;

J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 1. Basic Parameters for Shear Strength Prediction of Simply Supported Deep Beam: (a) Deep Beam; (b) Cross Section
Smith and Vantsiotis 1982; Rogowsky et al. 1986; Mau and
Hsu 1989; Tan and Lu 1999; Hwang et al. 2000).
Experimental Data
The experimental data collected from the literature cover
the shear strength of the specimens, which are simply sup-
ported and subjected to two point loads acting symmetrically
with respect to the centerline of the span. This case provides
a larger amount of data than other cases do, which is essential
for better training of a network. During the collection of the
data, specimens that do not have shear-related failures have
been excluded from the training set. The basic parameters that
control the shear strength of deep beams, based on previous
research works, are shown in Fig. 1. These parameters are
listed below:
• Effective span of beam (L)
• Breadth of beam (bw)
• Effective depth of beam (d )
• Shear span (a)
• Cylinder compressive strength of concrete ( f ⬘)
c that, at failure, the web steel is at yield. The shear friction
• Yield strength of horizontal steel ( fyh)
• Yield strength of vertical steel ( fyv)
• Reinforcement ratio of horizontal tensile steel (␳h)
• Reinforcement ratio of total horizontal steel (␳ht)
• Reinforcement ratio of transverse steel (␳ v)
In addition to those listed above, there are two more param-
eters that are also critical in deep beam behavior. These are
anchorage of longitudinal steel into supports and size of bear-
ing and loading areas. However, the values of these parameters
were not available in most of the experimental data collected
from the literature. Hence they are excluded from the input
data set used in training the artificial neural network in this
study.
The experimental data include 111 deep beam results, which
are taken from the tests carried out by Mau and Hsu (1989),
Subedi et al. (1986), Kong et al. (1995), ‘‘Discussion’’ (1995),
Kang et al. (1995), and Ramakrishnan and Ananthanarayana
(1968). It is apparent that each set of experimental data is in
a different format. After a thorough study of the tables and
diagrams given in the above references, the data are rearranged
J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828
in such a way that 10 basic parameters are listed as input
values and the shear strength is included as the corresponding
output value. The complete list of the data is given in the
Appendix, where the name and the source of each specimen
are referenced (Sanad 1997). The data collected contain the
ranges, which vary from 0.95 to 5.40 for effective-span/depth
ratios, from 1.57 to 47 for effective-depth/breadth ratios, and
from 0.23 to 3.00 for shear-span/effective-depth ratios.
Numerical Methods
Several methods exist in the literature for the prediction of
the shear strength of reinforced-concrete deep beams. The
most prominent among these, which are selected and used in
this study for the comparison of the results from the neural
network, are outlined in the following.
ACI Code Method
The recommended formula in the code consists of a set of
empirical rules based on a large amount of test data. The for-
mula uses the concept of shear friction theory and assumes
theory assumes that the concrete may crack in an unfavorable
manner or that slip may occur along a predetermined plane of
weakness such as an existing or potential crack, interface be-
tween dissimilar materials, or interface between two concrete
cast at different times. Reinforcement in such a case should
be designed to cross the potential or actual crack or shear plane
to prevent direct shear failure. The formula given in section
11.8 of the ACI code for the nominal shear strength of rein-
forced-concrete deep beams with web reinforcement is
Vn = ␾ ⫻ (Vc ⫹ Vs) (1)
in which the shear strength is computed by
Vc = 冋3.5 ⫺ 2.5
Mu
Vu d
册冉
1.9兹f ⬘c ⫹ 2,500␳w
Mu
冊
Vu d
bw d (2)
which should not be greater than 6兹f ⬘b c w d. The upper bound
on the term within the first bracket is 2.5. Furthermore the
shear strength Vn for the deep beam should not be greater than
8兹f ⬘b
c w d when ln /d < 2. When ln /d is between 2 and 5, the
following expression is to be used for Vn :
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001 / 819
 Vn =
2
3 冉10 ⫹
d冊
ln
兹f ⬘b
c wd (3)
equations in the strut-and-tie model. The expression is dimen-
sionless and contains four variables that express the horizontal
and vertical reinforcement ratios, concrete strength, and shear-
Note that (2) and (3) are in inches and pounds whereas this span ratio. The constants in the formula were calibrated using
paper is in SI units. Appropriate unit conversion is carried out the experimental data available in the literature. The expres-
when the equation is used in the computation of the shear sion for the shear strength of the deep beam is as follows:
strength of deep beams.
Vn = v bw d (7)

冋 冉 冊 冉 冊册
The shear strength Vs is computed by
ln ln v 1
1⫹ 11 ⫺ = [K(wh ⫹ 0.03)
Av d Av h d f ⬘c 2
Vs = ⫹ fy d (4)
s 12 s2 12 ⫹ 兹K 2(wh ⫹ 0.03)2 ⫹ 4(wh ⫹ 0.03)(wv ⫹ 0.03)] ⱕ 0.3 (8)
with the following limitations:
where Vn = nominal shear strength of the deep beam; ␾ =
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shear strength reduction factor, taken as 0.85; Vc and Vn = wh = ␳h fy /f ⬘c ⱕ 0.26; wv = ␳v fy /f ⬘c ⱕ 0.12 (9a,b)
shear strengths provided by concrete and shear reinforcements, K = 2d/h, for 0 ⱕ a/h ⱕ 0.5 (10a)

冋冉 冊册
respectively; Vu and Mu = factored shear force and moment at
the critical section; d = effective depth of the section; bw = d h 4 2a
K= ⫺ , for 0.5 < a/h ⱕ 2 (10b)
width of the section; ln = clear span of concrete; f ⬘c = cylinder h a 3 3h
compressive strength of concrete; ␳w = ratio of flexural tensile
reinforcement; Av = area of shear reinforcement perpendicular K = 0, for a/h > 2 (10c)
to flexural tension reinforcement within a distance s; Av h = where d and bw = effective depth and width of the beam; f ⬘c =
area of shear reinforcement parallel to flexural reinforcement cylinder compressive strength of concrete; h = total depth of
within a distance s2 ; and fy = yield strength of shear reinforce- the beam; a = shear span; K = ratio of the effective compres-
ment.
Validation of the ACI formula was carried out by a number
of researchers. It was reported in Rogowski et al. (1986) that
there is little agreement between the experimental values of
shear strength and those predicted by the ACI code formula.
In general, test-to-code ratios were conservative for simply
supported beams with a mean-test/code ratio of 1.88. It is ob-
served in Sanad (1997) that, for high-strength concrete deep
beams within the ranges of compressive strengths of 43–96
MPa, shear-span-to-depth ratio of 0.22–1.5, and slenderness
ratio (h/bw) of 4–50, the ACI method was overwhelmingly
conservative (almost 2) in all cases. Mau and Hsu (1989) have
carried out a number of experiments on deep beams and com-
pared test results with those of the ACI method. The mean
value of computed shear strength to the experimental one was
0.507. It is clear that the ACI formula predicts the shear
strength of deep beams on the conservative side, with a very
large safety margin.

Strut-and-Tie Method
This method was proposed by Wen (1993) based on a strut-
and-tie model. The proposed formula is
Vu = 1.8 ft bw d (5)
ft = 6.96兹f ⬘[1
c ⫹ m(␳k sin2␪ ⫹ ␳v cos2␪)] (6)
where Vu = shear strength of the deep beam; ft = allowable
tensile strength of concrete; bw and d = width and effective
depth of the beam; f c⬘ = cylinder compressive strength of con- FIG. 2. Artificial Neural Network: (a) Neural Network; (b) Processing
crete; m = modular ratio of steel reinforcement to concrete; ␳h Element
and ␳v = steel ratios of horizontal and vertical steel reinforce-
ment; and ␪ = angle with the horizontal made by the line
joining the edges of the loading plates and supports. TABLE 1. Ranges of Parameters in Database
It was reported by Wen that the formula is fairly accurate,
with an actual/predicted ratio of 0.83, in computing the shear Input parameters Range
strength of deep beams with a shear span to depth ratio <1.04. L/d 0.95–5.4
But as this ratio becomes >1.29, the validity of the equation d/bw 2.83–47
declines rapidly because the behavior of the beam starts to a/d 0.22–2.16
deviate from that of the deep beam. f c⬘ 12.5–76
fy h 250–600
fy v 0–460
Mau-Hsu Method ␳h 0.05–1.94
␳ht 0.14–2.95
Mau and Hsu (1989) derived an explicit expression for the ␳v 0–2.45
shear strength of deep beams, using the three equilibrium
820 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001

J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828

 sive stress in the transverse direction to the effective shear
stress in the shear element; and wh and wv = reinforcement
indices in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
Mau and Hsu stated that their formula is to be used within
the following limitations:
• Span/effective-depth ratio (L/d) should be between 0.95
and 3.3
• Reinforcement ratio of horizontal web steel (␳v h) should
be between 0 and 0.0091
• Reinforcement ratio of vertical steel (␳v) should be be-
tween 0.0018 and 0.0245
• Reinforcement ratio of compression steel (␳c) should be
between 0 and 0.0092
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Other Methods
There are a number of other methods in the literature sug-
gested for the prediction of the shear strength of reinforced-
concrete deep beams. Some of these are outlined in the fol-
lowing.
The CEB-FIP model code (1990) uses the strut-and-tie
method (ASCE-ACI 1998). The code allows the use of the
lower-bound approach of the theory of plasticity. The com-
pressive stress in the strut is limited by the value calculated
using the effectiveness factor, which is a function of the char-
acteristic cylinder strength. The required minimum amount for
the shear reinforcement in the webs of beams is expressed in
terms of a mechanical reinforcing ratio rather than a geomet-
rical value minimum ␳v .

• Concrete cylinder compression strength ( f ⬘)

c should be The Construction Industry Research and Information As-
close to 21 MPa sociation (CIRIA) method (1984) determines the shear
strength of deep beams with a clear-span-to-depth ratio of 0–
TABLE 2. Ultimate Shear Strength Values for Deep Beam Specimens 0.7. The method requires the depth of flexural cracks and the
Obtained by Neural Networks
angle these cracks make with the steel bars as input informa-
Propagator Software Predict Software tion. Such information was not available in the experimental
data collected.
Specimen Error Error
number (%) Vpred /Vexp (%) Vpred /Vexp
There are other methods reported in the literature, such as
the formula of Ramakrishnan and Ananthanarayana (1968) and
3 ⫺24.5 0.75 ⫺9.1 0.91 Zsutty’s equation (1971). None of the above methods were
7 ⫺23.0 0.77 ⫺1.6 0.98
23 ⫺13.2 0.87 0.2 1.00 selected in the comparative study because either they require
36 ⫺4.4 0.96 10.7 1.11 additional information that is not available in the experimental
45 ⫺19.6 0.80 2.1 1.02 data collected or they neglect the effect of one or more of the
80 ⫺16.1 0.84 0.5 1.01 selected input parameters that are used in the training of the
86 17.4 1.17 20.6 1.21 neural network.
93 ⫺5.1 0.95 0.6 1.01
95 ⫺15.0 0.85 ⫺0.4 1.00 NEURAL NETWORK MODELING
99 ⫺9.2 0.91 7.4 1.07
Average ⫺11.27 0.887 3.10 1.032
An artificial neural network is a computational tool that at-
tempts to simulate the architecture and internal operational fea-

FIG. 3. Comparison of Shear Strengths of Deep Beams Obtained by Various Methods: (a) Strut-and-Tie Method; (b) ACI Code Method; (c) Mau-Hsu
Method; (d) Neural Network

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001 / 821

J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828

 tures of the human brain and nervous system. It consists of a
number of processing elements, which represent neurons that
are connected to each other to constitute a network. Each pro-
cessing element can have many inputs, but it sends only one
output. Similar to the real behavior of a neuron, if the sum of
inputs to a given processing element exceeds a set threshold,
it fires an input to other neighboring processing elements.
Weights are applied to input signals, which are the strength of
the connection between processing elements. The values of
these weights are determined by using a number of training
input and output values. The neural network gains its problem-
solving ability through this process. An excellent description
of the basic anatomy of different types of neural networks is
given in Rumelhart et al. (1986) and Hertz et al. (1991).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1997). A review of papers on the same topic can be found in
Waszczyszyn (1996). These references reveal the fact that a
multilayer feed-forward neural network model is the most
widely used network for its efficient generalization capabili-
ties. A typical sample of such a neural network is shown in
Fig. 2(a) and consists of an input layer, output layer, and one
hidden layer.
The training process of a multilayer feed-forward neural
network consists of an iterative process in which the values
of the connection weights are determined (Hertz et al. 1991).
Among the available training methods, back-propagation is the
most successful and widely used in neural network applica-
tions (Kaveh and Khalegi 1998). In this method, the input is
propagated from the input layer through the hidden layers to

The application of neural networks in civil and structural the output layer. The error between the predicted and expected
engineering covers a range of diverse areas (Kartam et al. output values is then back-propagated from the output layer to
the input layer in which the connection weights are modified.
TABLE 3. Performance of Methods Selected for Predicting Shear This process is repeated until the error is minimized.
Strength of 10 Deep Beams Two different neural network software programs were used
Predicted Strength/Actual Strength to develop an artificial neural network by which the ultimate
shear strength of a reinforced-concrete deep beam can be pre-
Specimen ACI Truss Mau-Hsu Neural
dicted. These were professional versions of Propagator (Prop-
number method method method network
agator 1996) and Predict (Predict 1997). One hundred one of
3 0.33 0.89 0.97 0.91 the experimental data given in the Appendix were used to train
7 0.52 0.84 0.94 0.98
the network, and the remaining 10 were employed in testing
23 0.47 1.04 1.10 1.00
36 0.49 1.26 0.95 1.11 the network. Before feeding the data into the network, some
45 0.32 1.03 0.97 1.02 of the basic input parameters selected earlier are converted into
80 0.44 0.76 1.67 1.01 the following nondimensional form:
86 0.67 2.14 2.04 1.21
93 0.36 0.86 1.48 1.01
95 0.23 1.62 1.30 1.00 • Effective-span/effective-depth ratio (L/d )
99 0.31 1.91 1.45 1.07 • Effective-depth/breadth ratio (d/bw)
Average 0.41 1.24 1.29 1.03
• Shear-span/effective-depth ratio (a/d )
• Cylinder compressive strength of concrete ( f ⬘)
c

FIG. 4. Variation of Actual Strength to Predicted Strength with L/d Ratio: (a) ACI Code Method; (b) Strut-and-Tie Method; (c) Mau-Hsu Method;
(d) Neural Network

822 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001

J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828

 • Yield strength of longitudinal steel ( f yh)
• Yield strength of transverse steel ( f yv)
• Reinforcement ratio of horizontal tensile steel (␳h)
• Reinforcement ratio of total horizontal steel (␳ht)
• Reinforcement ratio of transverse steel (␳v)
The output was selected as the ultimate shear strength
(V/bd ) of the deep beam. The ranges of these parameters in
the experimental database used are given in Table 1.
When a nonlinear transfer function such as sigmoid or tanh
are used in a network, it becomes necessary to scale the orig-
inal data before training the network. The reason for scaling
is that the nonlinear transfer functions work best over a limited
range. For a sigmoid function, which was used in this study,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the output numbers are between 0 and 1. Hence, an appropriate
scaling conversion (Sanad 1997) is applied to the values of
the parameters so that they range within 0 and 1.
Propagator Software
The Propagator neural network software version 1.0 has the
facility of scaling the inputs before feeding them into the net-
work. The program requires a training file, validation file, and
testing file. It displays the best training and validation errors
and the cycle in which the best weights for training are ob-
tained. Several networks were created by varying the number
of layers, number of nodes in each layer, learning rate, and
momentum factor. The number of layers and number of nodes
in each layer were first fixed, and the learning rate and mo-
mentum factor were varied from 0 to 1 by increments of 0.1
FIG. 5. Variation of Actual Strength to Predicted Strength with a/d Ratio: (a) Strut-and-Tie Method; (b) ACI Code Method; (c) Mau-Hsu Method;
(d) Neural Network
J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828
until their best combination was obtained. After a number of
trials, the best net was determined, which has the following
features:
• The net consists of four layers: input layer of 10 nodes,
two hidden layers of 6 and 5 nodes, and output layer of
1 node.
• The linear transfer function is used for the proceeding
elements in the input layer, and the sigmoidal transfer
function is used in others.
• A learning rate of 0.4 and momentum factor of 0.2 pro-
vide the best combination.
The results obtained using this net for 10 specimens re-
served for testing the network are given in Table 2. The net-
work does not yield values within the desired tolerance limits.
However, these results are found to be better than those ob-
tained from the ultimate shear strength formulas suggested in
the ACI, strut-and-tie, and Mau-Hsu methods.
Predict Software
The professional version of this software is fully automated,
and it selects subparameters from a general list of input pa-
rameters. The data can be entered by MS Excel, which pro-
vides easy input. The software requires the selection of certain
parameters prior to its use for training, which are listed below:
• Input variable selection—This section uses a genetic al-
gorithm to determine a good subset of the full set of input
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001 / 823
 variables. Genetic algorithms are a recent addition to nu-
merical search techniques for finding the minimum of a
constrained or unconstrained function. This new class of
algorithms is developed by imitating living beings. The
structure of the genetic algorithm is based on the principle
of survival of the fittest (Goldberg 1989). The parameters
required to be selected in this section are variable selec-
tion model, convergence, population size factor, and re-
production factors.
• Network parameters—This section decides the architec-
ture of the network, such as the number of processing
elements in input, hidden, and output layers.
• Learning parameters—This software supports two learn-
ing rules, adoptive gradient and Kalman filter.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The main variables to be selected before creating the net-
work in Predict software are collected under the following
titles. Each title has a number of options available for selec-
tion. These are
• Noise—Noisy, moderate, very noisy
• Data transformation—Moderate, comprehensive superfi-
cial, scale only
• Variable selection—Moderate, comprehensive, exhaus-
tive, superficial
• Network search—Moderate, comprehensive, exhaustive,
superficial
Several combinations of the above parameters were tested
until the best results were obtained from the network. The final
FIG. 6. Variation of Actual Strength with f ⬘c : (a) Neural Network; (b) Strut-and-Tie Method; (c) Mau-Hsu Method; (d) ACI Code Method
824 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001
J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828
combination that is used in the network for predicting the
shear strength of deep beams was very noisy data, compre-
hensive data transformation, moderate variable selection, and
exhaustive network search of the aforementioned parameters.
The input and hidden layers have seven processing elements
while the output layer has only one. The ultimate shear
strength values obtained form this network for 10 deep beam
specimens reserved for testing the network are given in Table
2. It is clear that the network developed from the Predict soft-
ware performs extremely well within an average error of 3.1%
for out-of-training data.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The neural network developed using Predict software is em-
ployed to predict the shear capacity of deep beam specimens
listed in the Appendix, together with three methods, namely,
ACI, strut-and-tie, and Mau-Hsu. The results obtained are
shown in Fig. 3. It is clear from the results that the ACI
method is very conservative in predicting the actual strength
whereas the Mau-Hsu method underestimates the actual
strength beyond about 300 kN. The strut-and-tie method pro-
duces wide variations on either side of the desired ratio of 1.
The average ratio of actual strength to predicted strength of
all specimens is 2.07 in the ACI method, 0.85 in the strut-and-
tie method, 0.84 in the Mau-Hsu method, and 0.99 in the neu-
ral network. Table 3 shows the same ratio for only 10 beams,
which were not used in training but were reserved for testing
the network. The average ratio of actual strength to predicted
strength in this set of data is 2.44 for the ACI method, 0.81
 TABLE 4. Shear Strength Values Obtained by Various Methods for methods. The actual and predicted strengths of the beam are
Specimen 12 listed in Table 4.
Actual strength Predicted strength Error The results presented above clearly demonstrate the accu-
Method (N) (N) (%) Vpred /Vexp racy and efficiency of the trained neural network method over
ACI 172,716 100,836.7 ⫺41.6 0.58
the other three methods.
Truss 172,716 153,758.3 ⫺11.0 0.89
Mau-Hsu 172,716 163,967.3 ⫺5.1 0.95 CONCLUSIONS
Propagator 172,716 162,118.6 ⫺6.1 0.94
Predict 172,716 176,051.2 1.9 1.02 A comparative study was carried out for the use of multi-
layer feed-forward neural networks in predicting the ultimate
shear strength of simply supported deep beams subjected to
for the strut-and-tie method, 0.78 for the Mau-Hsu method, two point loads acting symmetrically with respect to the cen-
and 0.97 for the neural network. These values clearly show terline of the span. It is found that the strength values obtained
that the neural network performs much better than the methods from the artificial neural network are much more accurate than
selected in this study. those determined from ACI code, strut-and-tie, or Mau-Hsu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The variation of the ratio of actual strength to predicted
strength with the L/d ratio is shown in Fig. 4. A large variation
in the accuracy is noticed in the predictions made by the ACI
method for L/d ratios, particularly between 3 and 3.5. The
strength predictions determined by the strut-and-tie and Mau-
Hsu methods seem to be unaffected by the variation of the
L/d ratio. Results obtained from the neural network indicate
consistent accuracy in all ranges of the L/d ratios.
The variation of the ratio of actual strength to predicted
strength with the L/d ratio in four methods is shown in Fig.
5. Once again, the ACI method yields large variations. The
strut-and-tie and Mau-Hsu methods perform better compared
to the ACI method. The neural network results are not affected
by the variations in the a/d ratio.
The ratio of actual strength to predicted strength is plotted
against the cylinder compressive strength of the concrete f ⬘c for
the methods considered in this study. The graphs are shown
in Fig. 6. It is apparent from the graphs that the ACI method
overestimates the actual strength excessively for beams made
out of concrete having a compressive strength <40 N/mm2.
The strut-and-tie and Mau-Hsu methods are mostly unaffected
by the variation of f c⬘ except in some isolated cases. Among
these, the results obtained from the neural network is the con-
sistent one, having values close to 1 for a wide variation of
compressive strengths of concrete.
Finally, the deep beam specimen No. 12 is selected from
the database and its strength is determined using different
methods. Although the average value of the ratio of actual
strength to predicted strength was 2.07 for all deep beams in
the ACI method, 0.85 in the strut-and-tie method, and 0.84 in
the Mau-Hsu method, it was only 0.99 in the neural network.
These average ratios change to 2.44, 0.81, 0.78, and 0.97,
respectively, when the methods are employed for 10 beams
that are not used in training the network. These results clearly
indicate the accuracy of the neural network in predicting the
shear capacity of deep beams. Furthermore comparison has
revealed that although the ACI, strut-and-tie, and Mau-Hsu
methods were affected with the variations of L/d and a/d ratios
and the compressive strength of concrete, neural network per-
formance was unaffected by these variations.
It should be pointed out that the data collected from
the literature have not covered the ranges of L/d > 3.5, 1.25
< a/d < 1.4, and a/d > 1.75. It is therefore not possible
to state that the network performs correctly for all ranges.
However, this discrepancy can easily be eliminated if all
ranges are included in the training data. Furthermore, in this
study, simply supported deep beams under two concentrated
loads are considered. Beams under distributed loads or contin-
uous deep beams are not covered. However, from the results
obtained, it can be concluded that, with proper training, neural
networks can provide an excellent alternative for predicting
the strength capacities of structural members, particularly in
cases where no accurate single expression exists for the pre-
diction.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001 / 825

J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828

 APPENDIX

TABLE 5. Experimental Data for Ultimate Shear Strength of Deep Beams

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

826 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001

J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828

 TABLE 5. (Continued )
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: Specimens chosen for testing neural network have been highlighted.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001 / 827

J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828

 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1995). ‘‘Building code requirements
for reinforced concrete.’’ ACI 318-95, Detroit.
Arslan, A., and Ince, R. (1994). ‘‘Neural network based design of edge
supported reinforced concrete slabs.’’ Artificial intelligence and object
oriented approaches for structural engineering, B. H. V. Topping, ed.,
Civil-Comp Press, Edinburgh, U.K., 91–97.
ASCE-American Concrete Institute (ACI) 445 on Shear and Torsion.
(1998). ‘‘Recent approaches to shear design of structural concrete.’’ J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124(12), 1375–1417.
Asin, M., and Walraven, J. (1995). ‘‘Numerical analysis of reinforced
concrete continuous deep beams.’’ Heron, 40(2), 163–178.
Buenfeld, N. R., and Hassanein, N. M. (1998). ‘‘Predicting the life of
concrete structures using neural network.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs.,
Struct. and Build., London, 128(February), 38–48.
Chuang, P. H., Goh, A. T. C., and Wu, X. (1998). ‘‘Modeling the capacity
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Arba Minch University on 05/14/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of pin-ended slender reinforced concrete columns using neural net-
works.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 124(7), 830–838.
Comité Euro-International du Béton-Fédération International de la Pré-
contrainte (CEB-FIP). (1990). Model code for concrete structures, Ce-
ment and Concrete Association, London.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA).
(1984). Guide 2: The design of deep beams in reinforced concrete, Ove
Arup and Partners, London.
‘‘Discussion of ‘The design of reinforced concrete deep beams in current
practice,’ by F.-K. Kong, P. J. Robins, and G. R. Sharp.’’ (1975). The
Struct. Engr., London, 53(7), 300–301.
Goldberg, D. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and ma-
chine learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Hajela, P., and Berke, L. (1991). ‘‘Neuro-biological computational models
in structural analysis and design.’’ J. Comp. and Struct., 41(4), 657–
667.
Hertz, J., Krogh, A., and Palmer, R. G. (1991). Introduction to the theory
of neural computing, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, Calif.
Hwang, S.-J., Lu, W.-Y., and Lee, H.-J. (2000). ‘‘Shear strength prediction
for deep beams.’’ ACI Struct. J., 97(3), 367–376.
Jenkins, W. M. (1998). ‘‘Structural re-analysis by neural network.’’ Ad-
vances in Engineering Computational Technology, B. H. V. Topping,
ed., Civil-Comp Press, Edinburgh, U.K., 229–237.
Kang, H. T., Kong, F.-K., Susanto, T., and Lingwei, G. (1995). ‘‘High
strength concrete deep beams with effective span and shear span var-
iations.’’ ACI Struct. J., 92(4), 395–405.
Kartam, N., Flood, I., and Garrett, J. H. (1997). Artificial neural networks
for civil engineers: Fundamentals and applications, ASCE, New York.
Kaveh, A., and Khalegi, A. (1998). ‘‘Prediction of strength for concrete
specimens using artificial neural networks.’’ Advances in computational
structures technology, B. H. V. Topping, ed., Civil-Comp Press, Ed-
inburgh, U.K., 165–171.
Kong, F.-K., Robins, P. J., and Sharp, G. R. (1975). ‘‘The design of
828 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / JULY 2001
J. Struct. Eng., 2001, 127(7): 818-828
reinforced concrete deep beams in current practice.’’ The Struct. Engr.,
London, 53(4), 173–180.
Mau, S. T., and Hsu, C. T. (1989). ‘‘Formula for shear strength of deep
beams.’’ ACI Struct. J., 86(8), 516–523.
Predict professional. (1997). Neural Ware Inc., Pittsburgh.
Propagator: version 1.0. (1996). A. R. D. Environmental Inc., Md.
Ramakrishnan, V., and Ananthanarayana, Y. (1968). ‘‘Ultimate strength
of deep beams in shear.’’ ACI Struct. J., 65(2), 87–98.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and Parallel Distributed Processing
Research Group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing explorations
in the microstructure of cognition, 1st Edition, Vol. 1, MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, Mass.
Rogowsky, D. M., MacGregor, J. G., and Ong, Y. (1986). ‘‘Tests on
reinforced concrete deep beams.’’ ACI Struct. J., 83(4), 614–623.
Sanad, A. (1997). ‘‘Design of reinforced concrete members using neural
networks.’’ MSc thesis, University of Bahrain, Isa Town, Bahrain.
Shin, S.-W., Lee, K.-S., Moon, J.-I., and Ghosh, S. K. (1999). ‘‘Shear
strength of reinforced high-strength concrete beams with shear span-
to-depth ratios between 1.5 and 2.5.’’ ACI Struct. J., 96(4), 549–556.
Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. C. (1982). ‘‘Shear strength of deep
beams.’’ ACI Struct. J., 79(3), 201–213.
Subedi, N. K. (1988). ‘‘Reinforced concrete deep beams—A method of
analysis.’’ Proc., Instn. Civ. Engrs., London, Part 2, 128, 12–25.
Subedi, N. K., Vardi, A. E., and Kubata, N. (1986). ‘‘Reinforced concrete
deep beams—Some test results.’’ Mag. of Concrete Res., London,
38(137), 206–219.
Tan, K. H., and Lu, H. Y. (1999). ‘‘Shear behavior of large reinforced
concrete deep beams and code comparisons.’’ ACI Struct. J., 96(5),
836–845.
Topping, B. H. V., and Bahreininejad, A. (1997). Neural computing for
structural mechanics, Saxe-Coburgh Publications, Edinburgh, U.K.
Vanluchene, D., and Roufei, S. (1990). ‘‘Neural networks in structural
engineering.’’ J. Microcomputers in Civ. Engrg., 5(3), 207–215.
Waszczyszyn, Z. (1996). ‘‘Some recent and current problems of neuro-
computing in civil and structural engineering.’’ Advances in computa-
tional structures technology, B. H. V. Topping, ed., Civil-Comp Press,
Edinburgh, U.K., 43–58.
Waszczyszyn, Z. (1998). ‘‘Some new results in application of back prop-
agation neural networks in structural and civil engineering.’’ Advances
in computational structures technology, B. H. V. Topping, ed., Civil-
Comp Press, Edinburgh, U.K., 173–187.
Wen, B. S. (1993). ‘‘Strut-and-tie model for shear behavior in deep beams
and pile caps failing in diagonal splitting.’’ ACI Struct. J., 90(4), 356–
363.
Wu, X., Ghaboussi, J., and Garrett, J. H. (1992). ‘‘Use of neural networks
in detection of structural damage.’’ J. Comp. and Struct., 42(4), 649–
659.
Zsutty, T. (1971). ‘‘Shear strength prediction for separate categories of
simple beam tests.’’ ACI J. Proc., 68(2), 138–143.