Artificial bee colony-based neural network for the prediction of the fundamental period of infilled frame structures

  • Panagiotis G. AsterisEmail author
  • Mehdi Nikoo
Original Article


The artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm is a recently introduced swarm intelligence algorithm for optimization, which has already been successfully applied for the training of artificial neural network (ANN) models. This paper thoroughly explores the performance of the ABC algorithm for optimizing the connection weights of feed-forward (FF) neural network models, aiming to accurately determine one of the most critical parameters in reinforced concrete structures, namely the fundamental period of vibration. Specifically, this study focuses on the determination of the vibration period of reinforced concrete infilled framed structures, which is essential to earthquake design, using feed-forward ANNs. To this end, the number of storeys, the number of spans, the span length, the infill wall panel stiffness, and the percentage of openings within the infill panel are selected as input parameters, while the value of vibration period is the output parameter. The accuracy of the FF–ABC model is verified through comparison with available formulas in the literature. The results indicate that the artificial neural network, the weights of which had been optimized via the ABC algorithm, exhibits greater ability, flexibility and accuracy in comparison with statistical models.


Artificial intelligence techniques Artificial bee colony algorithm Artificial neural networks Fundamental period Infilled frames Soft computing techniques 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Liborio Cavaleri, Professor of Structural Engineering and Seismic Design at Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale, Aerospaziale, dei Materiali, University of Palermo, Italy, Dr. Panayiotis Roussis, Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of Cyprus, and Mr. Mohammad Nikoo, SAMA Technical and Vocational Training college, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz Branch, Ahvaz, Iran, for their valuable comments and discussions. Moreover, we gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Adeli H (2001) Neural networks in civil engineering: 1989–2000. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 16(2):126–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alavi AH, Amir Hossein Gandomi AH (2012) Energy-based numerical models for assessment of soil liquefaction. Geosci Front 3(4):541e555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1978) Tentative Provision for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Report No. ATC3-06. Applied Technology Council, RedwoodGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asteris PG (2016) The FP4026 Research Database on the fundamental period of RC infilled frame structures. Data Brief 9:704–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asteris PG, Kolovos KG (2017) Self-compacting concrete strength prediction using surrogate models. Neural Comput Appl. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asteris PG, Plevris V (2016) Anisotropic masonry failure criterion using artificial neural networks. Neural Comput Appl. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asteris PG, Repapis CC, Tsaris AK, Di Trapani F, Cavaleri L (2015) Parameters affecting the fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures. Earthq Struct 9(5):999–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asteris PG, Tsaris AK, Cavaleri L, Repapis CC, Papalou A, Di Trapani F, Karypidis DF (2016) Prediction of the fundamental period of infilled rc frame structures using artificial neural networks. Comput Intell Neurosci 016:5104907Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asteris PG, Repapis CC, Repapi EV, Cavaleri L (2017) Fundamental period of infilled reinforced concrete frame structures. Struct Infrastruct Eng 13(7):929–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asteris PG, Repapis CC, Foskolos F, Fotos A, Tsaris AK (2017) Fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures with vertical irregularity. Struct Eng Mech 61(5):663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asteris PG, Nozhati S, Nikoo M, Cavaleri L, Nikoo M (2018) Krill herd algorithm-based neural network in structural seismic reliability evaluation. Mech Adv Mater Struct. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bal L, Buyle-Bodin F (2014) Artificial neural network for predicting creep of concrete. Neural Comput Appl 25(6):1359–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chiauzzi L, Masi A, Mucciarelli M, Cassidy JF, Kutyn K, Traber J, Ventura C, Yao F (2012) Estimate of fundamental period of reinforced concrete buildings: code provisions vs. experimental measures in Victoria and Vancouver (BC, Canada). In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering 2012 (15WCEE), LisbonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chithra S, Kumar SRRS, Chinnaraju K, Alfin Ashmita F (2016) A comparative study on the compressive strength prediction models for High Performance Concrete containing nano silica and copper slag using regression analysis and Artificial Neural Networks. Constr Build Mater 114:528–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crowley H, Pinho R (2004) Period-height relationship for existing European reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 8(1):93–119. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crowley H, Pinho R (2006) Simplified equations for estimating the period of vibration of existing buildings. In: Proceedings of the first european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, 3–8 Sept, Paper Number 1122Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings (2004) EN 1992-1-1, Comité Européen de NormalisationGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (2004), pp 1–1998. European Standard EN BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Committee for Standardization CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    FEMA-450 (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures. Part 1: provisions. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gavin JB, Holger RM, Graeme CD (2005) Input determination for neural network models in water resources applications. Part 2. Case study: forecasting salinity in a river. J Hydrol 301(1–4):93–107Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goel RK, Chopra AK (1997) Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings. ASCE J Struct Eng 123(11):1454–1461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guler K, Yuksel E, Kocak A (2008) Estimation of the fundamental vibration period of existing RC buildings in Turkey utilizing ambient vibration records. J Earthq Eng 12(S2):140–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hakim SJS, Abdul Razak H (2013) Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) for structural damage identification. Struct Eng Mech 45(6):779–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hong LL, Hwang WL (2000) Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29(3):326–333.;2-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Internal Conference of Building Officials (1997) Uniform building code. Wilier, TriestinaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karaboga D, Akay B (2009) A comparative study of Artificial Bee Colony algorithm. Appl Math Comput 214(1):108–132. MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khademi F, Akbari M, Mohammadmehdi SJ (2015) Measuring compressive strength of puzzolan concrete by ultrasonic pulse velocity method. i Manag J Civ Eng 5(3):23–30Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Khademi F, Akbari M, Mohammadmehdi SJ (2015) Prediction of compressive strength of concrete by data-driven models. i Manag J Civ Eng 5(2):16–23Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee BY, Kim YY, Yi S-T, Kim J-K (2013) Automated image processing technique for detecting and analysing concrete surface cracks. Struct Infrastruct Eng 9(6):567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lourakis MIA (2005) A brief description of the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm implemented by levmar. Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology—Hellas (FORTH). Accessed 11 Feb 2005
  32. 32.
    Mansouri I, Kisi O (2015) Prediction of debonding strength for masonry elements retrofitted with FRP composites using neuro fuzzy and neural network approaches. Compos B Eng 70:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) (2006) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes. Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on Earthquake Risk BuildingsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nikoo M, Zarfam P, Nikoo M (2012) Determining displacement in concrete reinforcement building with using evolutionary artificial neural networks. World Appl Sci J 16(12):1699–1708Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nikoo M, Torabian Moghadam F, Sadowski L (2015) Prediction of concrete compressive strength by evolutionary artificial neural networks. Adv Mater Sci Eng. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nikoo M, Zarfam P, Sayahpour H (2015) Determination of compressive strength of concrete using Self Organization Feature Map (SOFM). Eng Comput 31(1):113–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Plevris V, Asteris PG (2014) Modeling of masonry failure surface under biaxial compressive stress using Neural Networks. Constr Build Mater 55:447–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sadowski L, Nikoo M (2014) Corrosion current density prediction in reinforced concrete by imperialist competitive algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 25(7–8):1627–1638. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sadowski L, Nikoo M, Nikoo M (2015) Principal Component Analysis combined with a Self Organization Feature Map to determine the pull-off adhesion between concrete layers. Constr Build Mater 78:386–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tereshko V (2000) Reaction–diffusion model of a honeybee colony’s foraging behaviour. In: Schoenauer M (ed) Parallel problem solving from nature VI, vol 1917. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Topçu IB, Saridemir M (2008) Prediction of compressive strength of concrete containing fly ash using artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. Comput Mater Sci 41(3):305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tsai H-C (2016) Modeling concrete strength with high-order neural networks. Neural Comput Appl 27(8):2465–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yuan Z, Wang L-N, Ji X (2014) Prediction of concrete compressive strength: research on hybrid models genetic based algorithms and ANFIS. Adv Eng Softw 67:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang Y, Zhou GC, Xiong Y, Rafiq MY (2010) Techniques for predicting cracking pattern of masonry wallet using artificial neural networks and cellular automata. J Comput Civ Eng 24(2):161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational Mechanics LaboratorySchool of Pedagogical and Technological EducationHeraklionGreece
  2. 2.Young Researchers and Elite Club, Ahvaz BranchIslamic Azad UniversityAhvazIran

Personalised recommendations