2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110793
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An improved deflection model for FRP RC beams using an artificial intelligence-based approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, the service load is assumed to be 40% of the ultimate load. Figure 6 a shows that for the GFRP specimen corresponding to the balanced reinforcement ratio, the models of effective moment of inertia proposed by ACI 440.1R-03 [ 32 ], ACI 440.1R-06 [ 34 ], and Nguyent et al [ 39 ] were found to underestimate the values of all states of the load after cracking. The model of Toutanji and Saafi [ 29 ] was shown to underestimate deflection at the service load stage by predicting too much stiffness after the initial load but overestimating the ultimate load.…”
Section: Comparison Of Test Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In this study, the service load is assumed to be 40% of the ultimate load. Figure 6 a shows that for the GFRP specimen corresponding to the balanced reinforcement ratio, the models of effective moment of inertia proposed by ACI 440.1R-03 [ 32 ], ACI 440.1R-06 [ 34 ], and Nguyent et al [ 39 ] were found to underestimate the values of all states of the load after cracking. The model of Toutanji and Saafi [ 29 ] was shown to underestimate deflection at the service load stage by predicting too much stiffness after the initial load but overestimating the ultimate load.…”
Section: Comparison Of Test Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For BFRP specimens, the equations of Bishoff [ 36 , 37 ], Bischoff and Gross [ 38 ], Mousavi and Esfahani [ 22 ], and our proposed model predicted a rather accurate error, with the average deflection within 1 mm. In the ultimate load state, models from ACI 440.1R-06 [ 34 ], Rafi and Nadjai [ 35 ], and Nguyen et al [ 39 ] accurately evaluated the average deflection error within 1 mm. It is judged that the fluctuation is large because the deflection generated under the same load is different for each GFRP and BFRP specimen.…”
Section: Comparison Of Test Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Improvements to the classical equations to calculate deflections are permanently being studied to consider, among other factors, the behaviour of non-rectangular cross-sections (Shaaban and Mustafa, 2019) and the behaviour of new reinforcement solutions (Ge et al, 2020), or to perfect the calculation of the effective moment of inertia (Nguyen et al, 2020).…”
Section: 4mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A gene expression programming (GEP) approach was used by Nguyena et al [67] to predict the deflection of FRP-strengthened beams. The work trained GEP using a database developed by calculating the effective moment of inertia of 108 constructed beams using 10 equations taken from the literature, taking into consideration the benefits of both theoretical and empirical models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%