4.6 Article

The prediction of ultimate pure bending moment of concrete-filled steel tubes by adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)

期刊

NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS
卷 31, 期 -, 页码 1239-1252

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-017-3108-3

关键词

ANFIS; Modelling; Computing; Circular tubes; Pure bending; Concrete-filled tube

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, different modelling techniques such as multiple regression and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) are used for predicting the ultimate pure bending of concrete-filled steel tubes (CFTs). The behaviour of CFT under pure bending is complex and highly nonlinear; therefore, forward modelling techniques can have considerable limitations in practical situations where fast and reliable solutions are required. Linear multiple regression (LMR), nonlinear multiple regression (NLMR) and ANFIS models were trained and checked using a large database that was constructed and populated from the literature. The database comprises 72 pure bending tests conducted on fabricated and cold-formed tubes filled with concrete. Out of 72 tests, 48 tests were conducted by the second author. Input variables for the models are the same with those used by existing codes and practices such as the tube thickness, tube outside diameter, steel yield strength, strength of concrete and shear span. A practical application example, showing the translation of constructed ANFIS model into design equations suitable for hand calculations, was provided. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on ANFIS and multiple regression models. It was found that the ANFIS model is more sensitive to change in input variables than LMR and NLMR models. Predictions from ANFIS models were compared with those obtained from LMR, NLMR, existing theory and a number of available codes and standards. The results indicate that the ANFIS model is capable of predicting the ultimate pure bending of CFT with a high degree of accuracy and outperforms other common methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据