Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New empirical formulations for indirect estimation of peak-confined compressive strength and strain of circular RC columns using LGP method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reinforced concrete (RC) columns have been basically designed to withstand compressive loads by means of strain and ductility of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcing materials. The objective of this paper is to propose new predictive models of confined compressive strength and strain at confined peak stress of circular-reinforced concrete columns using a powerful evolutionary-based computational technique, namely, linear genetic programming (LGP). For this aim, a collection of data is utilized to develop new models. The models obtained in this study characterize peak-confined compressive strength and corresponding strain factors in terms of the compressive strength of unconfined concrete cylinder specimens, core diameter of circular column, yield strength of transverse reinforcement, ratio of volume of lateral reinforcement to volume of confined concrete core, spacing of lateral reinforcement or spiral pitch, and ratio of longitudinal steel to area of core of section in addition to the column height. These factors have also been considered as the most significant input variables in several models proposed by scholars in the existing literature for approximation of the peak-confined compressive strength and corresponding strain of RC columns. To evaluate the validity of the obtained models, several analyses are conducted and the results are compared with those provided by other researchers to validate and verify the capability of the proposed models. Consequently, the results explicitly approve that the proposed models are of a notably better performance than the traditional models in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mander J, Priestley M, Park R (1988) Observed stress-strain behavior of confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1827–1849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mander JB, Priestley MJ, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rocca S, Galati N, Nanni A (2008) Review of design guidelines for FRP confinement of reinforced concrete columns of noncircular cross sections. J Compos Constr 12(1):80–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Saatcioglu M, Razvi SR (1992) Strength and ductility of confined concrete. J Struct Eng 118(6):1590–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakai K, Sheikh SA (1989) What do we know about confinement in reinforced concrete columns? ACI Struct J 86(2):192–207

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hoshikuma J, Kawashima K, Nagaya K, Taylor A (1997) Stress-strain model for confined reinforced concrete in bridge piers. J Struct Eng 123(5):624–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Oreta AW, Kawashima K (2003) Neural network modeling of confined compressive strength and strain of circular concrete columns. J Struct Eng 129(4):554–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sakai J (2001) Effect of lateral confinement of concrete and varying axial load on seismic response of bridges. Doctor of Engineering Dissertation, Dept of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo

  9. Committee A, Institute AC (2008) Standardization IOf Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. In: American Concrete Institute

  10. Aashto L (2012) Bridge design specifications, 6th edn. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  11. Caltrans S (2010) Caltrans seismic design criteria version 1.6. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  12. Priestley MN, Seible F, Calvi GM (1996) Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. Wiley

  13. Tsai H-C (2013) Polynomial modeling of confined compressive strength and strain of circular concrete columns. Comput Concrete 11(6):603–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tsai H-C, Pan C-P (2013) Improving analytical models of circular concrete columns with genetic programming polynomials. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 14(2):221–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tajeri S, Sadrossadat E, Bazaz JB (2015) Indirect estimation of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 80:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ziaee SA, Sadrossadat E, Alavi AH, Shadmehri DM (2015) Explicit formulation of bearing capacity of shallow foundations on rock masses using artificial neural networks: application and supplementary studies. Environ Earth Sci 73(7):3417–3431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiani B, Gandomi AH, Sajedi S, Liang RY (2016) New formulation of compressive strength of preformed-foam cellular concrete: an evolutionary approach. J Mater Civ Eng 28(10):04016092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sadrossadat E, Heidaripanah A, Ghorbani B (2016) Towards application of linear genetic programming for indirect estimation of the resilient modulus of pavements subgrade soils. Road Mater Pavement Des 1–15

  19. Sadrossadat E, Heidaripanah A, Osouli S (2016) Prediction of the resilient modulus of flexible pavement subgrade soils using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Constr Build Mater 123:235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baykasoğlu A, Güllü H, Çanakçı H, Özbakır L (2008) Prediction of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic programming. Expert Syst Appl 35(1):111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Sahab MG, Gandomi M (2010) Multi expression programming: a new approach to formulation of soil classification. Eng Comput 26(2):111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mousavi SM, Alavi AH, Mollahasani A, Gandomi AH, Esmaeili MA (2013) Formulation of soil angle of shearing resistance using a hybrid GP and OLS method. Eng Comput 29(1):37–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Hajihassani M, Abad SANK., Marto A, Moghaddam M (2016) Evaluation and prediction of flyrock resulting from blasting operations using empirical and computational methods. Eng Comput 32(1):109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Friedberg RM (1958) A learning machine: Part I. IBM J Res Dev 2(1):2–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cramer NL (1985) A representation for the adaptive generation of simple sequential programs. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 183–187

  26. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection, vol 1. MIT press

  27. Brameier M, Banzhaf W (2001) A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5(1):17–26

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Francone FD, Deschaine LM (2004) Extending the boundaries of design optimization by integrating fast optimization techniques with machine-code-based, linear genetic programming. Inf Sci 161(3):99–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Alavi AH, Sadrossadat E (2016) New design equations for estimation of ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations resting on rock masses. Geosci Front 7(1):91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Banzhaf W, Nordin P, Keller RE, Francone FD (1998) Genetic programming: an introduction, vol 1. Morgan Kaufmann San Francisco

  31. Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Sahab MG (2010) New formulation for compressive strength of CFRP confined concrete cylinders using linear genetic programming. Mater Struct 43(7):963–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sakai J, Kawashima K, Une H, Yoneda K (2000) Effect of tie spacing on stress-strain relation of confined concrete. J Struct Eng A 46:757–766

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shahin MA, Maier HR, Jaksa MB (2004) Data division for developing neural networks applied to geotechnical engineering. J Comput Civ Eng 18(2):105–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sadrossadat E, Soltani F, Mousavi SM, Marandi SM, Alavi AH (2013) A new design equation for prediction of ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundation on granular soils. J Civ Eng Manag 19(sup1):S78-S90

    Google Scholar 

  35. Trujillo L, Naredo E, Martínez Y (2013) Preliminary study of bloat in genetic programming with behavior-based search. EVOLVE-A bridge between probability, set oriented numerics, and evolutionary computation IV. Springer, pp 293–305

  36. Oltean M, Grosan C (2003) A comparison of several linear genetic programming techniques. Complex Syst 14(4):285–314

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Deschaine LM, Patel JJ, Guthrie RD, Grimski JT, Ades M (2001) Using linear genetic programming to develop a C/C++ simulation model of a waste incinerator. Advanced Technology Simulation Conference, Seattle, pp 22–26

  38. Smith GN (1986) Probability and statistics in civil engineering. Collins Professional and Technical Books 244

  39. Abu-Farsakh MY, Titi HH (2004) Assessment of direct cone penetration test methods for predicting the ultimate capacity of friction driven piles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(9):935–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Kashmar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kashmar, Iran

    Mohamad Fazel Rostami & Seyed Morteza Kazemi

  2. Young Researchers and Elite Club, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

    Ehsan Sadrossadat & Behnam Ghorbani

Authors
  1. Mohamad Fazel Rostami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ehsan Sadrossadat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Behnam Ghorbani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seyed Morteza Kazemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Sadrossadat.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 The optimum LGP program for the prediction of \(f_{{{\text{cc}}}}^{\prime }\)

The following LGP program can be run in the Discipulus interactive evaluator mode or can be compiled in C++ environment. Note: v[0], v [1],…, v [6], respectively, are \(f_{{\text{c}}}^{\prime }\) (MPa), d (mm), H (mm), fyh (MPa), ρs (%), s (mm), and ρcc (%) and f[0] holds the output which is \(f_{{{\text{cc}}}}^{\prime }\) (MPa).

figure a

1.2 The optimum LGP program for the prediction of ε cc

The following LGP program can be run in the Discipulus interactive evaluator mode or can be compiled in C++ environment. Note: v[0], v [1],…, v [6], respectively, are \(f_{{\text{c}}}^{\prime }\) (MPa), d (mm), H (mm), fyh (MPa), ρs (%), s (mm), and ρcc (%) and f[0] holds the output which is εcc (%).

figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rostami, M.F., Sadrossadat, E., Ghorbani, B. et al. New empirical formulations for indirect estimation of peak-confined compressive strength and strain of circular RC columns using LGP method. Engineering with Computers 34, 865–880 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0577-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0577-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation