| Literature DB >> 35591652 |
Payam Sarir1,2, Danial Jahed Armaghani3, Huanjun Jiang1,2, Mohanad Muayad Sabri Sabri4, Biao He5, Dmitrii Vladimirovich Ulrikh3.
Abstract
During design and construction of buildings, the employed materials can substantially impact the structures' performance. In composite columns, the properties and performance of concrete and steel have a significant influence on the behavior of structure under various loading conditions. In this study, two metaheuristic algorithms, particle swarm optimization (PSO) and competitive imperialism algorithm (ICA), were combined with the artificial neural network (ANN) model to predict the bearing capacity of the square concrete-filled steel tube (SCFST) columns. To achieve this objective and investigate the performance of optimization algorithms on the ANN, one of the most extensive datasets of pure SCFST columns (with 149 data samples) was used in the modeling process. In-depth and detailed predictive modeling of metaheuristic-based models was conducted through several parametric investigations, and the optimum factors were designed. Furthermore, the capability of these hybrid models was assessed using robust statistical matrices. The results indicated that PSO is stronger than ICA in finding optimum weights and biases of ANN in predicting the bearing capacity of the SCFST columns. Therefore, each column and its bearing capacity can be well-predicted using the developed metaheuristic-based ANN model.Entities:
Keywords: metaheuristic-based ANN models; predictive models; square concrete-filled steel tube columns; structural performance
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591652 PMCID: PMC9104517 DOI: 10.3390/ma15093309
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1ANN structure.
Figure 2PSO algorithm to optimize problems.
Figure 3ICA algorithm to optimize problems.
Figure 4PSO-ANN algorithm.
Figure 5ICA-ANN algorithm.
Figure 6The schematic of using AI techniques for the SCFST columns.
Statistical distribution of data.
| Parameter | Min | Max | Average | Std. Dev |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 164 | 55.66 | 35.25 | |
| B (mm) | 50.8 | 450 | 208.55 | 106.80 |
| L (mm) | 210 | 2540 | 937.10 | 575.45 |
| T (mm) | 1.94 | 18 | 5.90 | 3.70 |
| 229 | 1030.60 | 394.60 | 184.25 | |
| 329 | 8912 | 2139 | 1802.60 |
Figure 7Statistical distribution of the first patch of data.
Statistical distribution of data used in the modeling.
| Parameter | Min | Max | Average | Std. Dev |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 130.8 | 47.70 | 24 | |
| B (mm) | 80 | 450 | 198.50 | 94.90 |
| L (mm) | 295 | 2340 | 927.75 | 530.10 |
| T (mm) | 1.94 | 11.25 | 5.10 | 2.40 |
| 231 | 1030.60 | 377.20 | 184.60 | |
| 490 | 3922 | 1588 | 843.70 |
Figure 8Correlation matrix for the input and output variables.
Figure 9Ten PSO-ANN models and their RMSE results.
Figure 10C1 and C2 results in PSO-ANN models.
Figure 11Results of w in PSO-ANN models.
Figure 12Ten ICA-ANN models and their RMSE results.
Figure 13Results of N in ICA-ANN models.
Results of training, testing, and all data samples in predicting the bearing capacity of the SCFST columns.
| Metaheuristic-Based ANN Model | Training | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| VAF (%) | R2 | RMSE | |
| ICA-ANN | 84.873 | 0.855 | 0.097 |
| PSO-ANN | 90.549 | 0.908 | 0.077 |
| Model | Testing | ||
| ICA-ANN | 87.264 | 0.873 | 0.085 |
| PSO-ANN | 93.497 | 0.936 | 0.059 |
| Model | Training + Testing | ||
| ICA-ANN | 85.296 | 0.857 | 0.094 |
| PSO-ANN | 91.125 | 0.913 | 0.074 |
Figure 14The results bearing capacity of the SCFST columns by PSO-ANN; (a) training, (b) testing.
Figure 15The results bearing capacity of the SCFST columns by ICA-ANN; (a) training, (b) testing.
Comparison of the experimental results with predicted ones.
| No. | PExp | PPSO-ANN | PICA-ANN | PEC4 | PACI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (kN) | (kN) | (kN) | (kN) | (kN) | |
| 1 | 2275 | 2230 | 2163 | 2785 | 2520 |
| 2 | 1760 | 1625 | 1577 | 2751 | 2418 |
| 3 | 2985 | 2823 | 2738 | 2666 | 2415 |
| 4 | 3900 | 3723 | 3612 | 3441 | 3073 |
| 5 | 768 | 845 | 680 | 660 | 656 |
| 6 | 1426 | 1403 | 1361 | 1176 | 1059 |
| 7 | 1302 | 1445 | 1464 | 1136 | 1025 |
| 8 | 990 | 1007 | 1018 | 923 | 858 |
| 9 | 965 | 854 | 829 | 826 | 775 |
| 10 | 890 | 895 | 868 | 783 | 738 |
| 11 | 1530 | 1552 | 1505 | 1240 | 1127 |
| 12 | 1367 | 1355 | 1314 | 1202 | 1094 |
| 13 | 1088 | 971 | 942 | 940 | 932 |
| 14 | 1176 | 1269 | 1290 | 994 | 930 |
| 15 | 1160 | 1042 | 1011 | 900 | 851 |
| 16 | 1090 | 923 | 896 | 858 | 815 |
| 17 | 1630 | 1841 | 1890 | 1299 | 1190 |
| 18 | 1484 | 1592 | 1602 | 1262 | 1159 |
| 19 | 934 | 849 | 824 | 601 | 560 |
| 20 | 1934 | 2145 | 2242 | 1502 | 1477 |
| 21 | 2828 | 2995 | 3109 | 2445 | 2383 |
| 22 | 2238 | 2279 | 2300 | 2517 | 2284 |
| 23 | 956 | 1029 | 1070 | 1205 | 1127 |
| 24 | 3302.4 | 3450 | 3556 | 3666 | 3502 |
| 25 | 3203.8 | 3256 | 3280 | 3666 | 3502 |
| 26 | 3611.6 | 3523 | 3418 | 4383 | 4112 |
| 27 | 3474 | 3240 | 3120 | 4988 | 4695 |
| 28 | 840 | 732 | 702 | 572 | 553 |
| 29 | 860 | 799 | 775 | 619 | 593 |
| 30 | 1575 | 1592 | 1545 | 1404 | 1313 |
Figure 16Importance of input variables.