Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Predicting the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams using artiﬁcial neural networks
M.Y. Mansour ^{a} , M. Dicleli ^{b}^{,} ^{} , J.Y. Lee ^{c} , J. Zhang ^{a}
^{a} Department of Civil Engineering, University of Brstish Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada ^{b} Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, Bradley University, 1501 West Bradley Avenue, Peoria, IL 616250114, USA ^{c} Department of Architectural Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea
Received19 May 2003; receivedin revisedform 17 September 2003; accepted5 January 2004
Abstract
The application of artiﬁcial neural networks (ANNs) to predict the ultimate shear strengths of reinforced concrete (RC) beams with transverse reinforcements is investigatedin this paper. An ANN model is built, trainedandtestedusing the available test data of 176 RC beams collected from the technical literature. The data used in the ANN model are arranged in a format of nine input parameters that cover the cylinder concrete compressive strength, yield strength of the longitudinal and transverse reinfor cing bars, the shearspantoeﬀectivedepth ratio, the spantoeﬀectivedepth ratio, beam’s crosssectional dimensions, and the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios. The ANN model was found to predict the ultimate shear stress well within the range of input parameters considered. The average value of the experimental shear strength to predicted shear strength ratios of the 176 specimens is 1.003. The ANN shear strength predicted results were also compared to those obtained using building codes’ empirical equations and variouscompatibility aided softened truss model theories. The results show that ANNs have strong potential as a feasible tool for predicting the ultimate shear strength of RC beams with transverse reinforcement within the range of input parameters considered. Finally, the ANN model was used to show that it could perform parametric studies to evaluate the eﬀects of some of the inputs parameters on the chosen output. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Artiﬁcial neural network; Shear strength; Reinforced concrete; Truss model; Building codes
1. Introduction
The behavior anddesign of reinforcedconcrete (RC) beams in shear remains an area of concern for structural engineers due to the sudden and brittle fail ure of RC beams dominated by shear action and due to the lack of rational design equations in building codes. The partial collapse of the Wilkins Air Force Depot warehouse in Ohio, in 1955, which was caused by shear failure of RC beams, raisedconcerns about the inadequate shear design practice at that time. Since then, design code procedures have evolved and become more stringent to prevent such sudden failures.
^{} Corresponding author. Tel.: +13096773671; fax: +1309677
2867.
Email address: mdicleli@bradley.edu (M. Dicleli).
01410296/$  see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.01.011
The shear failure modes, the resisting mechanisms at crackedstages, andthe role of various parameters are presently under discussion and subject to debates among researchers. In addition, research studies [1–7] have been carriedout with regardto the characteristic parameters that aﬀect the shear strength of RC beams. Some of these parameters include material strength, shearspantoeﬀectivedepth ratio, amount of rein forcement as well as size andshape of the beam. The traditional approach used in most research in modeling the eﬀect of these parameters on the shear strength of an RC beam starts with an assumedform of empirical or analytical equation andis followedby a regression analysis using experimental data to determine unknown coeﬃcients, such that the equation will ﬁt the test data. However, a comparative study of various models [4] for prediction of shear strength of RC beams has
782
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
demonstrated that they are eﬀective only for interpret ing their own experimental results usedfor their cali bration. This discrepancy may be attributed to the diﬀerences in the variables used and the details of the experiments. Unfortunately, rational andeasytouse types of equations are not yet available in design codes to accu rately predict the shear strength of RC beams with transverse reinforcement. Therefore, the present study examines the feasibility of using artiﬁcial neural net works (ANNs) to predict the shear strength of RC beams with transverse reinforcement using available data from past experiments. An ANN is by deﬁnition an interconnected network of processing elements that has the ability to be trained to map a given input into the desired output. Since the shear behavior of RC beams failing in shear is inﬂu encedby various complex parameters andthe experi mental data available are scattered, then ANNs may be usedas an eﬀective tool to predict the shear strengths of RC beams failing in shear. In this study, the shear design equations, as given by the American, Canadian and the New Zealand building design codes [8–10] as well as threecompatibility aided softenedtruss model theories, namely the modiﬁed compression ﬁeldtheory [11] (MCFT), the rotating angle softenedtruss model [12] (RASTM) andthe ﬁxedangle softenedtruss model [13] (FASTM), are selectedto calculate the shear strengths of 176 RC beams collectedfrom the literature. The shear strengths of the same beams are also predicted using the ANN model. The experimental shear strength results for the 176 beams are then comparedto the results predicted using the codes’ equations, softened truss model the ories andthe ANN model to assess the eﬃciency of the ANN model. Finally, the ANN model is used to dem onstrate that it couldperform parametric studies to evaluate the eﬀects of some of the input parameters on the chosen output (shear strength in this study).
2. Ultimate shear strength of RC beams
Although many rational truss model theories have been proposed over the past two decades, such as the MCFT [11] andthe RASTM [12], to predict the strength anddeformation characteristics of shear ele ments, the formulation of rational shear design equa tions using these theories is very complex due to the presence of both known andunknown variables, which are mutually dependent. Therefore, most shear design equations are derived from the equilibrium conditions of the simple 45 ^{v} truss model theory proposed by Ritter andMorsch at the turn of the 20th century. These equations are in turn modiﬁed using statistical
analysis to account for the eﬀects of ﬂexure andthe longitudinal reinforcement ratio on the shear strength of RC beams and are adopted in most design codes, such as the ACI building code [8]. The equations sim ply estimate the shear strength of an RC beam as the superposition of shear strength due to concrete alone andshear reinforcement alone. However, the shear strength of RC beams predicted using these simple eq uations was foundto be very conservative when com paredto experimental observations. This was mainly because the equations were basedon the assumption that no interaction between shear resisting mechanisms occurs which contradicts the ﬁndings of many research ers [3,4]. As a result, diﬀerent rational truss model the ories [11–13] were developed to predict the shear strengths andbehavior of sheardominant structures. In the following subsections, ﬁrst the experimental data for the shear strength of 176 RC beams collected from the literature are introduced. Then, the shear design equations, as given by the American, Canadian and the New Zealand building design codes [8–10] as well as threecompatibility aided softened truss model theories (MCFT [11], RASTM [12] andFASTM [13]) are discussed brieﬂy.
2.1. Experimental data
The collected experimental data included 176 RC beams all having shear reinforcement [5–7,14–25]. The complete list of the data of the 176 RC beams is pre sentedin Table A1 of the Appendix with the name and reference source of each specimen. The data cover the shear strengths of the specimens that are subjectedto either one or two point loads acting symmetrically with respect to the centerline of the beam span. The beams have diﬀerent support conditions simulating simple span, continuous span andﬁxedsupport conditions. During the collection stage, specimens that did not fail in shear were excluded from the database. Basedon the previous research studies, some of the important parameters that are thought to aﬀect the shear strength of RC beams are listedbelow:
.
.
.
.
.
.
shearspan (a);
eﬀective span of beam (L);
eﬀective depth (d) andsize of beam;
width of web (b _{w} );
material strength of concrete, ﬂexural (longitudinal) reinforcement andshear (transverse) reinforcement
0
c
f
;f yl ;f yt
^{} ;
reinforcement ratios of longitudinal steel and shear
steel
ð
q ;q
l
t
Þ.
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
783
2.2. 
Shear strength using building codes 
2.2.1. 
ACI building code 
The shear provisions in the ACI building code [8], ACI 31802, originatedfrom the 1962 ACIASCE Committee on Shear andDiagonal Tension [26]. The committee proposedan equation for calculating the
shear strength in beams without shear reinforcement as expressedbelow:
v _{c} ¼ V _{c} =b _{w} d ¼ 0:16
ð1Þ
V _{u} d
M u
ðMPaÞ
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
p
f
0 þ 17:2q _{w}
c
where b _{w} is the breadth of beam; d the eﬀective depth
of beam; f
0 the cylinder concrete strength of concrete;
c
q _{w} the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio; V _{u} and M _{u} are the shear andmoment at the critical section, respectively. The formulation of the above equation followeda twostep procedure. In the ﬁrst step, a basic analysis of the stresses at the ﬂexural crack in the shearspan was performedto identify the signiﬁcant parameters. The concrete strength, amount of longitudinal tensile reinforcement andthe shearspantodepth ratio were foundto be the most important parameters that aﬀect the shear strength of the beams. In the secondstep, the existing test data of RC beams were analyzed statisti cally to establish the constants 0.16 and17.2 as given by Eq. (1) above. For beams with transverse reinforcement, the ACI building code [8] states that the nominal shear strength,
v _{n} , of RC beams is composedof the concrete shear contribution, v _{c} andthe transverse reinforcement con tribution, v _{s} , as given below:
v _{n} ¼ v _{c} þ v _{s} 
ð2Þ 
where v _{c} is presentedin Eq. (1) and v _{s} is expressedas 

v _{s} ¼ A _{v} f _{y}_{v} =b _{w} s ¼ q _{v} f _{y}_{v} 
ð3Þ 
In the above equation A _{v} is the area of vertical shear reinforcement; f _{y}_{v} the yieldstress of stirrups, s the spa cing of stirrups; and q _{v} is the shear reinforcement ratio. The ACI building code also states that the concrete shear contribution andthe shear reinforcement contri
bution must not be taken greater than 0:3
and
0:66
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
f
0
c
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ f , respectively.
0
c
2.2.2. CSA(Canadian Standards Association) building
code Two approaches are identiﬁed in the Canadian building code [9] for shear design: the general method (A23.3 C1. 11.4) andthe simpliﬁedmethod(A23.3 C1. 11.3). The general methodis basedon the MCFT [11] andwill not be usedin this study, as the shear strength prediction as given by the original formulation of the MCFT [11] is addressed separately. Thus, the simpli ﬁedmethodis usedto calculate the shear strengths of
the considered RC beams. The simpliﬁed method is permittedfor ﬂexural members that are not subject to signiﬁcant axial tension as is the case for all considered beams in this study. Similar to the ACI building code [8], the shear strength of a RC beam as given by the simpliﬁed methodis composedof the concrete shear contribution andthe transverse reinforcement contribution as expressed in Eq. (2). In the Canadian building code [9],
two equations for the concrete shear contribution, v _{c} ,
are given depending on the amount of transverse reinforcement andthe eﬀective depth (d) of the beam as expressedbelow:
^{V} ^{c}
v c ¼
_{A} v _{} 006
_{b} w _{d} ¼ 0:2
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
p
f
0
c
b w s
0
c
f
yv
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
p
f
when
or d 300
mm
v _{c} ¼
V
c
b _{w} d ^{¼}
260
1000 þ d
_{A} v _{<} 006
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
f
0
c
b w s
f
yv
and
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
p
f
0
c
0:1
d > 300
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
f
0
c
mm
when
ð4Þ
ð5Þ
The shear strength contribution of the transverse reinforcement, v _{s} , has the same form as that of the ACI building code [8] as given by Eq. (3).
2.2.3. New Zealand concrete structures design code
The New Zealand concrete structures design code [10] is applicable to members with concrete strength up to 100 MPa andnot resisting earthquake forces. The
nominal shear capacity of an RC beam with transverse reinforcement is expressedas ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
v _{n} ¼ ð0:07 þ 10q _{w} Þ
The concrete contribution term in Eq. (6) must be
within the ﬃﬃﬃﬃ minimum andmaximum limits of 0:08
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
p
f
0
c
þ q _{v} f _{y}_{v}
ð6Þ
p
f
0
c
and0:2
p
f , respectively.
0
c
2.3. Shear strength using softened truss models: MCFT [11], RASTM [12], and FASTM [13]
Threecompatibility aided softened truss models, namely the MCFT [11], the RASTM [12] andthe FASTM [13], are brieﬂy presentedandusedin this paper to predict the ultimate shear strengths of the 176 RC beams reportedin the literature. All three truss model theories assume the cracked reinforced concrete to be a continuous material (smearedcrack concept) and satisfy equilibrium equations, compatibility equations, andthe constitutive relationships of the materials. The main tensile ﬂexural andthe transverse reinforcements are assumedto be smearedover the crosssection of the RC beam in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively. Neither the compatibility andequilibrium
784
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
Table 1 Stress–strain curves of concrete andsteel bars usedin the MCFT [11], RASTM [12], andFASTM [13] theories
MCFT
RASTM
FASTM
Compression stress–strain curve of concrete (ascending branch)
Tension stress–strain curves of concrete
Shear stress–strain curve of concrete (in MCFTlocal) Steel stress–strain curves
r
m
r
0
c
_{d} ^{c} ¼ vf
2
e
ve _{o}
d
e
ve _{o}
d
¼
1
0:8þ170e _{r}
^{c} ¼ E _{c} e _{r}
r
^{} ^{1}^{:}^{0}
if
e _{r} e _{c}_{r}
2
r ^{c} ¼
r
cr
^{v} ^{c}^{i}^{m}^{a}^{x} ^{¼}
f
1þ
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
p
500e
0:18
_{r}
ﬃﬃﬃ
p 0
c
f
0:31þ
24w
aþ16
if
e _{r} > e _{c}_{r}
_{f} _{s} _{¼} _{E} _{s} _{e} _{s} _{} _{f} _{y} _{} ^{r} ^{c}
r
q
0
c
r ^{c} _{d} ¼ vf
2
e
ve _{o}
d
e
ve _{o}
d
^{m} ^{¼}
r ^{c} ¼ E _{c} e _{r}
5:8
1
r
p ﬃﬃﬃ ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
f
0
c
p
1þ400e _{r}
if
e _{r} e _{c}_{r}
2
_{r} _{c}
r
¼ f cr
e
e
cr
r
^{0}^{:}^{4} if e _{r} > e _{c}_{r}
^{N}^{/}^{A}
f _{s} ¼ E _{s} e _{s}
f _{s} ¼ ð0:91 2BÞf _{y} þ ð0:02 þ 0:25BÞE _{s} e _{s}
if f _{s} > f
0
y
if f _{s} f
y
0
0
c
r ^{c} _{2} ¼ vf
2
e
ve
2
o
e
ve
2
o
2
m ¼
r ^{c} ¼ E _{c} e _{1}
5:8
1
g ¼ ^{q} ^{t} ^{f} ^{y}^{t} q _{l} f yl
1
p ﬃﬃﬃ p ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
f
0
c
1þ400e _{1} =g
if
;
e _{1} e _{c}_{r}
r ^{c} ¼ f cr
1
e
e
cr
1
if e 1 > e cr
^{s} c
21
^{¼}
ðr ^{c} r ^{c} 2 ^{Þ}
1
2ðe _{1} e _{2}
_{Þ} c _{2}_{1} (Ref. 29)
f _{s} ¼ E _{s} e _{s}
f _{s} ¼ ð0:91 2BÞf _{y} þ ð0:02 þ 0:25BÞE _{s} e _{s}
if f _{s} > f
0
y
if f _{s} f
y
0
Note: r and d denote the directions of the principal tensile and compressive stresses in concrete, respectively. 1 and 2 denote the directions of the appliedprincipal tensile andcompressive stresses, respectively.
equations nor the solution procedures of the three considered truss model theories are reported in this paper but can be foundelsewhere [11–13]. Only the constitutive relationships of the materials (concrete and steel) are presentedin Table 1. The constitutive relation ships of the materials as given in the RASTM [12] and FASTM [13] are basedon the research ﬁndings of Belarbi andHsu [27,28]. Following the solution proce dures of each truss theory, three separate computer pro grams were developed and executed to calculate the ultimate shear strength of each of the 176 RC beams. Both the MCFT [11] andthe RASTM [12] theories assume that the inclination of the principal compressive stress in concrete coincides with the inclination of the principal compressive strain. The main diﬀerence between both theories is that in the MCFT [11] a crackcheck has to be provided to insure that the con crete tensile stresses can be transmittedacross cracks which in turn causes the local stresses in the reinforce ment to be increasedat the crack locations giving rise to shear stresses at the crack surfaces. On the other hand, in the RASTM [12] a new smearedstress–strain curve of steel bars embedded in concrete was proposed to take care of the crackcheck presentedin the MCFT. Although the RASTM [12] andMCFT [11] are two rational models to predict the shear response of rein forcedconcrete elements, they are incapable of deriving the wellknown ‘‘concrete contribution’’ in shear resist ance. In order to predict the socalled ‘‘concrete contri bution’’, Pang andHsu [13] proposedFASTM [13]. In this model, the concrete struts are assumed to remain parallel to the initial cracks, the direction of which is determined from the principal applied stresses just prior to cracking. In the FASTM [13], the concrete compression andtension stress–strain curves as well as the steel bars’ stress–strain curves are assumedto be the same as those given in the RASTM [12] with only minor modiﬁcations. Additionally, the concrete shear
constitutive relationship is basedon the one derivedby Zhu et al. [29] andspeciﬁedin Table 1.
3. Artiﬁcial neural networks (ANNs)
ANNs are, by deﬁnition, interconnected networks of processing elements that have the ability to be trained to map a given input into the desired output. ANNs possess some distinctive properties not found in con ventional computational models. Traditional comput ing models are based on predeﬁned rules (equations, formulas, etc.) that clearly specify the problem. The program follows an explicit stepbystep procedure to compute desired outputs. This is feasible when the rules deﬁning the problem are known in advance. In most cases however, there are only observational data of the problem, while the underlying rules relating the input variables to the output variables are either unknown or extremely diﬃcult to discover. Under there circumstances, ANNs exhibit their superiorities over conventional computational techniques. ANNs are composedof many interconectedproces sing units. Each processing unit keeps some infor mation locally, is able to perform some simple computations, andcan have many inputs but can send only one output. The ANNs have the capability to respond to input stimuli and produce the correspond ing response, andto adapt to the changing environ ment by learning from experience. Therefore, in order for researchers to use ANNs as a predictive tool, data must be usedto train andtest the model to check its successfulness. There are a number of ANN paradigms [30,31], but the most widely used are the multilayer backpropa gation neural networks (MBNNs). The MBNNs have been appliedto solve many structural engineering applications as reportedby many researchers [32–35] andare also employedin this research.
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
785
3.1. MBNN architecture
Generally, an MBNN is made of an input layer of neurons, sometimes referredto as nodes or processing units, one or several hidden layer of neurons and an output layer of neurons. The neighboring layers are fully interconnectedby weights. The layout of the threelayer neural network usedin this study is illu stratedin Fig. 1(a). The network shown consists of an input layer with nine neurons, a hidden layer with three neurons, andan output layer with one neuron. The input layer neurons receive information from the outside environment and transmit them to the neurons of the hidden layer without performing any calculation. The hidden layer neurons then process the incoming information andextract useful features to reconstruct the mapping from the input space to the output space. Finally, the output layer neurons produce the network predictions to the outside world.
Fig. 1. Artiﬁcial neural network. (a) A typical MBNN, (b) typical neuron in a hidden layer.
Prior to being appliedfor prediction, the neural net work architecture must be set up (the number of hid den layer and the number of neurons in each layer), then a set of training samples are usedto train the net work so that it learns the functional relationship between the input variables andthe output variables. The amount of learning is proportional to the diﬀer ence between the target output andthe computedout put. This learning process will in turn leadto adjusting the weights of the neurons to minimize the discrepancy between the two output values (target andcomputed) as explainedin the next section. At the start of the training, the weights are randomly set to arbitrary small real numbers. Then the examples are presentedto the network anda forwardpass oper ation is performed. Each neuron calculates the weigh tedsum of its inputs andtransmits the result through a transfer function from which the neuron output is obtained. The data ﬂow forward layer by layer. The discrepancies between the target and the predicted out puts measure the training error. In order to achieve satisfactory estimation, the weights of the network must be adapted to minimize the training error. This is done by a backward pass of the error, which is referred to as error backpropagation. The network error is passedbackwards from the output layer to the input layer, andthe weights are adjustedbasedon some learning strategies so as to reduce the network error to an acceptable level. One pass through the set of train ing inputs, together with the modiﬁcation of the weights, constitutes one cycle or epoch. After the net work is well trained, all the weights are frozen, and the network can then be appliedfor prediction within the domain covered by the inputs of the training examples. The basic unit of a neural network is the neuron that determines the function of the entire network. A sche matic diagram of an artiﬁcial neuron is illustrated in Fig. 1(b). The neurons receive inputs from the neurons of the preceding layers, calculate the weighted sum of the inputs andsubtract a thresholdvalue. Finally, the neurons pass this outcome through a transfer function producing the neurons outputs, which in turn are transmittedto the neurons of the next layers as inputs. Some examples of commonly usedtransfer functions are depicted in Fig. 2. In this study, the Sshaped sigmoidfunction is chosen andusedto produce the
Fig. 2.
Diﬀerent types of transfer functions usedin ANN.
786
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
neuron output. There are two important features of the sigmoidfunction. First, this transfer function intro duces nonlinearity that further enhances the neural network’s ability to model complicated functions [36]. Second, because of the property of the sigmoid func tion, which is asymptotic to values 0 and1, it produces very small signal error that will help in the network learning procedures. To better explain the abovementionedANN pro cedure, the ANN network shown in Fig. 1(a) is taken as an example. The error ‘‘E’’ between the computed value (denoted by O _{k} ) andthe target output (denoted by T _{k} ) of the output layer is deﬁned as
E
¼
n
1
2 X
k¼1
ðO _{k} T _{k} Þ ^{2}
ð7Þ
where
k
O _{k} ¼ FðI _{i} W Þ ¼ F
i
3
^{X}
i¼1
I _{i} W _{i} !
k
ð8Þ
In the equation above, F( ) is the sigmoidfunction
deﬁned in Fig. 1(b), I _{i} is the input to neuron ‘‘k’’ of the single output layer from neuron ‘‘i’’ of the hidden
k is the weight associatedbetween neuron
layer, and W
i
‘‘i’’ of the hidden layer and neuron ‘‘k’’ of the output
layer. Note that in the ANN model shown in Fig. 1(a), only one output is usedandthus the subscript ‘‘n’’ in Eq. (7) (summation sign) is equal to 1. The learning mechanism of backpropagation net works is a generalizeddelta rule [31] that uses the gradient descent to minimize the error between the computedandthe target output. Therefore, from the hidden layer to the output layer, the modiﬁcation of weights is representedrespectively by the following expression:
ð9Þ
DW
k
i
¼
kd _{k} I _{i}
where k is the learning rate and d _{k} ¼ ðT _{k} O _{k} Þ F ^{0} ðI _{i} W Þ. From the input layer to the hidden layer, similar equations can also be written
k
i
DW ^{j} ¼ kd _{j} I _{i}
i
ð10Þ
where d _{j} ¼ W _{k}_{j} d _{k} F ^{0} ðI _{i} W ^{j} Þ. The training algorithm can be improvedby adding momentum terms into the weights equations as shown below:
i
k
i
W
k
i
ðt þ 1Þ ¼ W
ðtÞ þ kd _{k} I _{i}
k
i
þ c W
k
i
ðtÞ W
ðt 1Þ ^{}
ð11Þ
^{j} ðt þ 1Þ ¼ W ^{j} ðtÞ þ kd _{k} I _{i}
W
i
i
ð12Þ
where ‘‘t’’ denotes the learning cycle and ‘‘c’’ is the momentum factor.
þ c ^{} W ^{j} ðtÞ W ^{j} ðt 1Þ ^{}
i
i
The process of forwardandbackpropagation con tinues until either the error is reduced to an acceptable target value or the program runs for a speciﬁedtime. Although the backpropagation learning algorithm is widely used, this algorithm has a slow rate of learning [31]. Moreover, the convergence rate is highly depen dent on the choice of the values of momentum and learning ratios accountedfor in this algorithm. A detailed explanation of backpropagation networks is beyondthe scope of this paper. However, the basic algorithm for backpropagation neural networks is described elsewhere [31,38].
4. ANN models used for the prediction of shear strength
4.1. ANN models and selection of input parameters
In this study, a computer program [37] basedon the MBNN algorithm [38,39] with momentum is usedin the simulations to develop an ANN model for predict ing the ultimate shear strength of RC beams with stir rups. The program requires the following input data:
1. The error tolerance, which is set to 3% in this study, and is deﬁned according to the root mean square error (RMSE).
2. The maximum number of training cycles or epochs, which is chosen as 50,000 to achieve the speciﬁed error tolerance. Once this number is attainedthe program is terminatedeven if the error tolerance is not met.
3. The total number of data that is presented (in this case, 176 RC beams were considered). The computer program uses 80% of the total data for training and the remaining 20% for testing.
4. The number of input neurons (nine in this study) andoutput neurons (one in this study).
5. A learning rate anda momentum factor, which are set equal to 0.4 and0.2 in this study.
The following nine variables are usedas input para meters for the ANN model constructed in this investi
gation: (1) f ; (2) f _{y}_{l} ; (3) f _{y}_{t} ; (4) a/d; (5) b _{w} ; (6) d; (7) L/d; (8) q _{l} ; (9) q _{t} . The output was selectedas the ulti mate shear strength (V/b _{w} d) of the RC beam. The ran ges of the input parameters in the experimental database used are presented in Table 2.
ANN simulations are conducted using the program
by experimentation. Values of the learning rate and momentum factor are variedwhile ﬁxing the number of hidden layers and number of neurons in the hidden
layers. In most of the simulations, it is foundthat one hidden layer and values of 0.4 for the learning rate and 0.2 for the momentum factor wouldleadto a minimum
0
c
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
787
Table 2 Ranges of input parameters in database
Input parameters 
Range (min–max) 

0 
ð MPaÞ 
12.7–42.2 

f c 

f _{y}_{l} ðMPaÞ f _{y}_{t} (MPa) a/d b _{w} (mm) d (mm) L/d q _{l} (%) q _{t} (%) 
340–1029 

250–1431 

1.56–7.2 

140–305 

244–495.3 

3.33–14.4 

0.61–4.76 

0.099–1.47 
error. As far as the hidden layer is concerned, there is no general rule for selecting the number of neurons in
a hidden layer. The choice of hidden layer size is
mainly problem speciﬁc and to some extent depends on the number andquality of training patterns. The num ber of neurons in a hidden layer must be suﬃcient for the correct modeling of the problem, but it should be suﬃciently low to insure generalization [40,41]. In this study, while designing the ANN model, it is found more appropriate to carry out a parametric study by changing the number of neurons in the hidden layer in order to test the stability of the network while keeping
the values of the learning rate andmomentum factor equal to 0.4 and0.2, respectively. The performance of the network with various hidden neurons is measured by the RMSE, obtainedduring the training of each network. Accordingly, it was concluded that three neu rons in the hidden layer result in a stable and optimum network leading to a minimum RMSE value.
For the output parameters, usually a linear trans formation works well, although a nonlinear trans formation is usually recommended if the data are clusteredas is the case in this investigation. Thus, in this work, the output parameters are ﬁrst transformed in the following:
S ¼ lnðÞY
ð14Þ
whereY denotes the target value of output variable and ln denotes Napier logarithm. Then, S is normalized within the values of 0.1–0.9 for the sigmoidfunction as shown below:
ð15Þ
where V denotes the normalized target value of ln (Y) or S; and Y _{l} andY _{u} denotes the lower and upperbounds of the output variableY, respectively.
ð
V ¼ 0:1 þ 0:8 S lnY _{l}
Þ= lnY _{u} lnY _{l}
ðÞ
4.3. Training and testing data
The experimental shear strength of the RC beam is usedas the target value. The data of the 176 RC beams are groupedrandomly into training set andtesting set before presenting them to the network for analysis. Out of the 176 collecteddata, 140 are usedfor training the network and36 are usedto test the network. The ANN model was able to learn all the patterns presented with an RMSE error of less than 0.03 after 45,000 cycles of training.
5. Analysis results
5.1. Predicted results using ANN and other methods
4.2. Normalization of input and output data
Data scaling is an essential step for network training. One of the reasons for preprocessing the input and
output data is the use of the sigmoid transfer function
in this research. The sigmoidfunction constraints the
output to lie within the range (0,1). Scaling of the
inputs to the range ( 1,+1) greatly improves the learn ing speed, as these values fall in the region of sigmoid transfer function where the output is most sensitive to variations of the input values. It is therefore recom mended to normalize the input and output data before presenting them to the network. Various normalization
or scaling strategies have been proposed [40,42]. In this study, a simple linear normalization function is used for the input parameters as shown below:
ð13Þ
where U denotes the normalized value of input X; and X _{l} and X _{u} denote the lower and upper bounds of input variable X.
U ¼ 1:0 þ 2:0 ð X
X
l
Þ= ðÞ
X
u
X
l
The ANN model developed in this research is used to predict the shear strengths of the 176 RC specimens. The ratio of the experimental shear strength to the ANN predicted shear strength of each RC beam is given in Table A1. The average value of these ratios as given by ANN is 1.003 with a COV of 4%. The results of Table A1 indicate that the neural network was suc cessful in learning the relationship between the diﬀerent input parameters andthe single output (shear strength). The results of the testing phase (shown in boldin Table A1) suggest that, although the model was not trainedfor these data, the neural network was cap able of generalizing the relationship between the input variables andthe output andyieldedreasonably good predictions. The average value and COV of the experi mental to predicted shear strength ratios of the data
usedto test the ANN are 1.01% and5%, respectively. The ANN shear strength results as well as those obtainedfrom the ACI, CSA, New Zealandbuilding design codes [8–10] andthreecompatibility aidedsof tenedtruss models (MCFT [11], RASTM [12], and
788
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
FASTM [13]) are shown in Fig. 3(a)–(g). Fig. 3(a)–(c) displays the predicted shear strengths versus the experi mental shear strengths of the RC beams using the MCFT [11], RASTM [12], andthe FASTM [13]. The predicted results using the MCFT [11] andthe RASTM [12] exhibit approximately the same trendfor RC beams when the ultimate shear stress is less than 4 MPa. For larger values of the ultimate shear stress, the MCFT [11] shows more scatter when comparedto the predicted results of the RASTM [12]. However, in this range, both models tend to overestimate the ultimate shear stress. On the other hand, the predicted results of the FASTM [13] tendto underestimate the actual
shear strengths of the RC beams. The mean value and COV of the ratios of the experimental to predicted shear strength values for each methodare also given in Fig. 3(a)–(g) andin Table 3 for comparison purposes. The predicted results using the ACI [8] andCSA [9] building codes underestimate the observed shear strength of the RC beams as shown in Fig. 3(d) and (e), respectively, while the predicted shear strength results of the RC beams using the New Zealandconcrete structures design code [10] (Fig. 3(f)) produces varia tions on either side of the desired ratio of 1. The New Zealand concrete structures design code tends to predict
Fig. 3. Comparison of predicted shear strengths versus experimental shear strengths using various methods (Note: mean andCOV values are basedon the ratios of experimental to predictedshear strength values).
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
789
Table 3 Average andCOV values of experimental to predictedshear strength values
Methodused 
Average value 
COV (%) 
MCFT 
0.94 
19 
RASTM 
0.95 
15 
FASTM 
1.36 
22 
ACI 
1.59 
22 
CSA 
1.38 
21 
New Zealand0.96 
20 

ANN (all data) ANN (test data) 
1.003 
4 
1.01 
5 
the shear strength better than those given by the ACI and CSA building codes [8,9]. The average value of the ratios of the experimental to predicted shear strength values of all RC beams is 0.947 in the MCFT [11], 0.952 in the RASTM [12], 1.361 in the FASTM [13], 1.597 in the ACI method [8], 1.386 in the CSA method [9], 0.96 in the NewZealandmethod [10], and1.003 in the ANN method. These values as well as Fig. 3(a)–(g) show clearly that the ANNs methodcan predict the shear strength of the RC beams much better than the other considered methods.
5.2. Eﬀect of certain parameters on experimental
to predicted shear strength ratio
In this section, the ACI [8], CSA [9], andthe ANN methods as well as the threecompatibility softened truss model theories are considered to further investi gate the eﬀect of some of the variables on the predic tions of the shear strengths of the RC beams. Although many important variables aﬀect the shear behavior of RC beams, only the concrete strength, percentages of reinforcement in the longitudinal and transverse direc tions, the shearspantodepth ratio, as well as the depthtowidth ratio will be considered to assess the eﬀects of these variables on the predicted shear strengths results.
5.2.1. Eﬀect of concrete strength
The variation of the experimental shear strength to predicted shear strength ratio (referred to in this paper
as the ultimate shear stress ratio) versus the concrete compressive strength for each methodis shown in Fig. 4(a)–(f). From the ﬁgures it is clear that the ACI [8], CSA [9], andthe FASTM [13] methods yield con servative andscatteredresults for the range of concrete strength being investigated. The values of ultimate shear stress ratios using the RASTM [12] andMCFT [11] display less scatter. Furthermore, the results obtainedusing the RASTM exhibit less scatter when comparedto those of the MCFT (COV of RASTM [12] is 14% while that of MCFT [11] is 19%). This is
because the softening coeﬃcient of crackedconcrete in compression proposedby Belarbi andHsu [28] in the RASTM [12] is a function of both the concrete cylin der compressive strength and the tensile strain, while that of the MCFT [11] does not include the eﬀect of the concrete strength. The results of ultimate shear stress ratios using the ANN model indicate consistent accuracy for the range of concrete strength being inves tigatedas shown in Fig. 5(f).
5.2.2. Eﬀect of longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement ratios Fig. 5 displays the variation of the ultimate shear stress ratio as a function of the longitudinal reinforce ment ratio for the three truss models, as well as the ACI [8], the CSA [9], andthe ANN methods. The ulti mate shear stress ratios using the MCFT [11] andthe RASTM [12] show less scatter when the longitudinal reinforcement ratio is within the range of 1–2.5%. This is because the constitutive relationships of the materials in both theories were calibratedfor RC panels with amount of reinforcing steel falling within the above mentionedrange. On the other hand, the results as given by the FASTM show more scatter when com paredto those of the MCFT [11] andRASTM [12] theories andtendto be very conservative when com paredto the experimental observations (the values of the ultimate shear stress ratios are more than one). In addition, the results as given by the ACI and CSA building codes are also on the conservative side but show lots of scatter as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increases. On the other hand, the ANN results are not aﬀectedby the variation in the longitudinal reinforcement ratios. Fig. 6 displays the eﬀect of the transverse reinforce ment ratio on the ultimate shear stress ratio for the three truss models, as well as the ACI [8], the CSA [9], andthe ANN methods. The ultimate shear stress ratios using MCFT [11] andRASTM [12] show more scatter when the transverse reinforcement ratio is less than 0.5% (Fig. 6(a) and(b)). This trendis mainly due to the fact that the constitutive concrete relationships as proposedin both truss model theories are basedon RC elements with transverse reinforcement ratios larger than 0.5%. The results of the FASTM [13], ACI [8], andCSA [9] are foundto be conservative within the range of transverse reinforcement ratio being investi gated, while those of the ANN model are not aﬀected by the change in transverse reinforcement ratio as shown in Fig. 6(c)–(f). To further check the safety involvedin the predicted results as given by the FASTM comparedto the pre dicted results as obtained by the MCFT [11] and RASTM [12], the ultimate shear stress ratios for the MCFT [11], RASTM [12], andFASTM [13] are plot tedagainst the ratios, l, of the transverse to longitudinal
790
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
Fig. 4.
Variation of experimental to predicted shear strength ratio with concrete strength
0
f ^{} using diﬀerent methods.
c
reinforcing indexes for all RC beams, as shown in Fig. 8. This ratio is denoted by l ¼ q _{t} f _{y}_{t} =q _{l} f _{y}_{l} . Fig. 7 clearly shows that the FASTM results are conservative and exhibit lots of scatter for values of l smaller than 0.25, unlike the results obtainedusing the MCFT [11] and RASTM [12] theories. This thresholdvalue of l (0.25) was presentedby Pang andHsu [13] when pro posing the range of applicability of their FASTM theory for RC structures. This discrepancy between the predicted results and experimental results as given by the FASTM [13] for values of l less than 0.25 is explainedby Lee et al. [22] andis mainly due to the excessive crack rotation in concrete as the diﬀerence between the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios increases. For values of l larger than 0.25, the ultimate shear stress ratio given by FASTM [13] becomes closer to one.
5.2.3. Eﬀect of shearspantoeﬀectivedepth ratio
The variations of the ultimate shear stress ratios with
a/d values are shown in Fig. 8. Once again, the results obtainedusing the MCFT [11] andRASTM [12] display less scatter than those obtained using the FASTM [13], the ACI [8], andCSA [9] methods which leadto large variations with all values of a/d being investigated. On the other hand, results obtained from the ANN model show consistency and accuracy for all values of a/d being investigated.
5.2.4. Eﬀect of depthtowidth ratio
The eﬀect of the beam’s size on the predicted results is presentedin Fig. 9 In the ﬁgure, the size eﬀect is representedby the ratio of the beam’s depth to the web’s width (d/b _{w} ). As expected, the ANN predicted results are in reasonably goodagreement for all ratios
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
791
Fig. 5.
Variation of experimental to predicted shear strength ratio with longitudinal steel ratio using diﬀerent methods.
of d/b _{w} considered in this investigation. While the ACI, CSA, andFASTM show lots of scatter andcon servatism for all values of d/b _{w} , the predicted results as given by the RASTM andthe MCFT show less scatter andin some cases these two truss theories give pre dicted shear strengths larger than the experimental ones especially when the depthtowebwidth ratio is less than 3.
5.3. Parametric studies using ANN
Since the ANN model is found to be capable of gen eralization within the range of the input parameters being investigated, parametric studies are carried out in this section to evaluate the eﬀects of some of the input parameters on the output. This is done by testing the model with hypothetical data by varying the values of
some input parameters. In this section, two parametric studies are carriedout as outlinedbelow. The ﬁrst parametric study considers the eﬀect of
varying the shearspantoeﬀective depth ratio and con crete strength on the ultimate shear strength of RC beams as shown in Fig. 10. This parametric study is carriedout by changing the values of the a/d ratio and concrete strength ðf Þ while keeping the other input parameters constant as given below:
q _{t} ¼ 0:22%;
f _{l}_{y} ¼ 402 MPa; f _{t}_{y} ¼ 358 MPa; L=d ¼ 5. Fig. 10 shows that the ultimate shear strength of an RC beam increases with increasing concrete strength anddecreasing a/d ratio. The results are in goodagree ment with ﬁndings of other researchers [4,5,14]. The secondparametric study is carriedout to show the variation of the ultimate shear stress of RC beams as a function of the longitudinal and transverse
0
c
d ¼ 244 mm; b ¼ 220 mm; q _{l} ¼ 3:6%;
792
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
Fig. 6.
Variation of experimental to predicted shear strength ratio with transverse steel ratio using diﬀerent methods.
reinforcement ratios. In this parametric study, the values of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios are variedwhile keeping the other input para meters constant as shown below:
¼ 40 MPa;
f _{l}_{y} ¼ 402 MPa; f _{t}_{y} ¼ 358 MPa; L=d ¼ 5. The results of this secondparametric study are pre sentedin Fig. 11. To check the successfulness of this ANN parametric study, Fig. 11 also depicts the results as obtainedby Zsutty’s formula [43] given below:
d ¼ 380 mm; b ¼ 200
0
mm; a=d ¼ 3:0; f
c
v _{u} ¼ 2:2
0
c
f q ^{d}
a
^{} 1=3
þq _{v} f _{y}_{v}
ð16Þ
where the ﬁrst term on the righthand side needs to
be multipliedby 2.5d/a when a/d is less than 2.5. The ﬁgure shows that the ANN parametric results and those of Zsutty’s equation [43] show the same trend:
the shear strength increases as the amount of longi
tudinal reinforcement or transverse reinforcement
increases.
6. Use of ANN in structural engineering
The success of the ANN model in predicting the shear strengths of RC beams andin modeling physical processes highlights that such a numerical technique can be usedreliably to produce ample shear strengths data of RC beams, within the range of input para meters usedto train the model, rather than referring to
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
793
Fig. 7.
Variation of ultimate shear stress ratio with l as given by MCFT, RASTM, andFASTM.
Fig. 8.
Variation of experimental to predicted shear strength ratio with shearspantoeﬀectivedepth ratio (a/d) using diﬀerent methods.
794
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
Fig. 9.
Variation of experimental to predicted shear strength ratio with eﬀective depth to web width ratio (d/b _{w} ) using diﬀerent methods.
Fig. 10. Variation of maximum shear stress with concrete strength and a/d ratio as predicted by ANN.
Variation of maximum shear stress with longitudinal and
transverse steel ratios (Note: value in bracket denotes the transverse steel ratio).
Fig. 11.
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799
795
costly experimental investigation. The generateddata can in turn be usedto help propose andformulate mathematical equations that will help practicing struc tural engineers to predict more accurately the shear strengths of RC beams. On the other hand, although ANN has been widely usedin ﬁnancial andelectrical engineering practical problems [38,40], its use in structural engineering is still limitedto research relatedproblems only [41]. How ever, many easytouse software, such as the Propa gator Software [44] andPredict Software [45] to name a few, that requires limitedknowledge of ANN are now available andhave been successfully usedby researchers in structural engineering applications [34]. These simple software will hopefully encourage struc tural engineers to use such a numerical technique in practice in the near future. For instance, the Predict Software [45] is fully automated, and it selects para meters from a general list of input parameters. This software is compatible with MS Excel that facilitates the input of data.
7. Conclusions
The study conducted in this paper shows the feasi bility of using a simple MBNN to predict the ultimate shear strengths of RC beams with transverse rein forcements. After learning from a set of selectedtrain ing data, involving the shear strengths of transversely reinforcedRC beams collectedfrom the technical literature, the ANN model is used to successfully predict the shear strengths of the test data within the range of input parameters being investigated. Applying the ANN model to predict the shear strengths of RC beams with input parameters outside the range over which the model was trained does not guarantee adequate strength predictions. In such a case, more data should be collected to increase the range of input parameters needed to cover the domain of interest.
It is foundthat the strength values obtainedfrom the ANN are more accurate than those obtainedfrom design codes’ empirical equations and sophisticated softenedtruss model theories. The average value of the ratios of the experimental shear strengths to predicted shear strengths is 0.947 in the MCFT [11], 0.952 in the RASTM [12], 1.36 in the FASTM [13], 1.597 in the ACI method [8], 1.386 in the CSA method [9], 0.96 in the New Zealandmethod [10], and1.003 in the ANN model. The results also indicate that with proper training, ANN can provide an alternative methodfor predicting the strength capacities of struc tural members especially in cases where it is diﬃcult to model the complex interactions among the multiple variables. The eﬀect of the concrete strength, the amount of steel in the longitudinal and transverse directions, the shearspantoeﬀectivedepth ratio, as well as the size of the beams on the predicted shear strength results as given by the ACI [8] andCSA [9] building codes, the three truss model theories, and the ANN was also studied. The study showed that within the range of input parameters being investigated, the results of the ANN show consistency andaccuracy when comparedto the results as given by other meth ods. Other methods showed scatter in the predicted results for diﬀerent values of input parameters con sidered. The ANN model was also used to perform para metric studies and was successful in modeling physical processes. The conducted parametric studies show that the shear strength of an RC beam increases as:
(a) the concrete strength increases andthe shear spantodepthratio decreases; and as (b) the amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement increase. The results of the parametric studies were found to be in agreement with other research ﬁndings
[3,5,14,43].
Appendix A.
Table A1 Data andratios of experimental shear strength to predictedANN shear strength of beams
Beam 
b 
d 
F 
0 c 
^{f} dy 
^{f} ty 
a/d 
q(long.) 
q(tran.) 
^{L}^{/}^{d} 
^{v} u Exp 
V u exp /w ANN 
Ref. 
(mm) 
(mm) 
(MP _{a} ) 
(MP _{a} ) (MP _{a} ) 
(%) 
(%) 
(MP _{a} ) 

A1 
307 
466 
24 
555 
325 
3.94 
1.80 
0.10 
7.8 
1.63 
0.942 
25 

A2 
305 
464 
24 
555 
325 
4.93 
2.28 
0.10 
9.9 
1.73 
1.035 
25 

B1 
231 
461 
25 
555 
325 
3.94 
2.43 
0.15 
7.9 
2.09 
1.051 
25 

B2 
229 
466 
23 
555 
325 
4.91 
2.43 
0.15 
9.8 
1.88 
1.040 
25 

C1 
155 
464 
30 
555 
325 
3.94 
1.80 
0.20 
7.9 
2.17 
1.007 
25 

C2 
152 
464 
24 
555 
325 
4.93 
3.66 
0.20 
9.8 
2.30 
1.080 
25 

A11 
203 
390 
25 
321 
331 
2.35 
3.10 
0.38 
4.7 
2.80 
1.106 
15 
(continued on next page)
796 
M.Y. Mansour et al. / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 781–799 

Table A1 (continued) 

Beam 
b 
d 
F 
0 c 
^{f} dy 
^{f} ty 
a/d 
q(long.) 
q(tran.) 
^{L}^{/}^{d} 
^{v} u Exp 
V u exp /w ANN 
Ref. 
(mm) 
(mm) 
(MP _{a} ) 
(MP _{a} ) 
(MP _{a} ) 
(%) 
(%) 
(MP _{a} ) 

A12 
203 
390 
24 
321 
331 
2.35 
3.10 
0.38 
4.7 
2.64 
0.933 
15 

A13 
203 
390 
23 
321 
331 
2.35 
3.10 
0.38 
4.7 
2.81 
0.955 
15 

A14 
203 
390 
25 
321 
331 
2.35 
3.10 
0.38 
4.7 
3.08 
0.987 
15 

B11 
203 
390 
23 
321 
331 
1.95 
3.10 
0.37 
4.7 
3.51 
1.041 
15 

B12 
203 
390 
25 
321 
331 
1.95 
3.10 
0.37 
4.7 
3.23 
0.982 
15 

B13 
203 
390 
24 
321 
331 
1.95 
3.10 
0.37 
4.7 
3.59 
1.050 
15 

B14 
203 
390 
23 
321 
331 
1.95 
3.10 
0.37 
4.7 
3.37 
1.021 
15 

B15 
203 
390 
25 
321 
331 
1.95 
3.10 
0.37 
4.7 
3.04 
0.960 
15 

B21 
203 
390 
23 
321 
331 
1.95 
3.10 
0.73 
4.7 
3.80 
0.977 
15 

C13 
203 
390 
24 
321 
331 
1.56 
2.07 
0.34 
4.7 
3.10 
1.042 
15 

C31 
203 
390 
14 
321 
331 
1.56 
2.07 
0.34 
4.7 
2.82 
1.062 
15 

C32 
203 
390 
14 
321 
331 
1.56 
2.07 
0.34 
4.7 
2.53 
1.005 
15 

C33 
203 
390 
14 
321 
331 
1.56 
2.07 
0.34 
4.7 
2.37 
0.974 
15 

C41 
203 
390 
24 
321 
331 
1.56 
3.10 
0.34 
4.7 
3.90 
1.072 
15 

D16 
152 
315 
28 
321 
331 
1.94 
3.42 
0.46 
7.8 
3.65 
1.002 
15 

D17 
152 
315 
28 
321 
331 
1.94 
3.42 
0.46 
7.8 
3.74 
1.013 
15 

D18 
152 
315 
28 
321 
331 
1.94 
3.42 
0.46 
7.8 
3.88 
1.032 
15 

D26 
152 
315 
30 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.61 
9.7 
3.52 
0.986 
15 

D27 
152 
315 
28 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.61 
9.7 
3.28 
0.957 
15 

D28 
152 
315 
26 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.61 
9.7 
3.51 
0.990 
15 

D41 
152 
315 
27 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.49 
9.7 
3.51 
1.019 
15 

D42 
152 
315 
26 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.49 
9.7 
3.28 
0.985 
15 

D43 
152 
315 
22 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.49 
9.7 
3.45 
0.992 
15 

D51 
152 
315 
28 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.37 
9.7 
3.05 
0.982 
15 

D52 
152 
315 
29 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.37 
9.7 
3.28 
1.012 
15 

D53 
152 
315 
27 
321 
331 
2.43 
3.42 
0.37 
9.7 
3.28 
1.019 
15 

C205D10(1) 
150 
315 
29 
361 
355 
2.00 
2.61 
0.24 
6.0 
2.91 
1.032 
16 

C205D20(2) 
150 
315 
30 
387 
355 
2.00 
2.08 
0.24 
6.0 
2.59 
0.978 
16 

C210DOA(3) 150 
315 
34 
361 
355 
2.00 
2.61 
0.47 
6.0 
3.45 
1.005 
16 

C305DO(5) 
150 
315 
33 
361 
355 
3.00 
2.61 
0.24 
6.0 
2.28 
0.923 
16 

1V1/4(1) 
140 
464 
24 
329 
378 
1.75 
3.99 
0.27 
5.3 
3.99 
1.045 
17 

2V1/4(2) 
140 
464 
33 
329 
378 
1.75 
3.99 
0.27 
5.3 
4.62 
1.023 
17 

2V3/8(8) 
140 
464 
28 
329 
329 
1.75 
3.99 
0.27 
5.3 
4.91 
1.091 
17 

1aV1/4(13) 140 
495 
24 
329 
316 
1.64 
3.99 
0.27 
4.9 
3.39 
0.924 
17 

1aV3/8(14) 140 
495 
23 
329 
357 
1.64 
3.99 
0.27 
4.9 
3.75 
0.990 
17 

R8 
152 
272 
27 
618 
269 
3.36 
1.46 
0.21 
6.7 
1.92 
0.984 
5 

R11 
152 
272 
26 
618 
269 
3.36 
1.95 
0.21 
6.7 
2.16 
1.020 
5 

R12 
152 
254 
34 
618 
269 
3.60 
4.16 
0.21 
7.2 
2.83 
0.993 
5 

R14 
152 
272 
29 
618 
269 
3.36 
1.46 
0.14 
6.7 
2.16 
1.015 
5 

R15 
152 
254 
30 
618 
279 
3.60 
4.16 
0.41 
7.2 
3.61 
0.993 
5 

R16 
152 
254 
31 
618 
279 
3.60 
416 
0.41 
7.2 
361 
0.992 
5 

R24 
152 
254 
31 
618 
269 
5.05 
4.16 
0.21 
10.1 
2.38 
0.933 
5 

R25 
152 
254 
31 
618 
269 
3.60 
4.16 
0.21 
7.2 
2.70 
0.976 
5 

R28 
152 
254 
31 
618 
269 
3.60 
4.16 
0.83 
7.2 
4.63 
0.970 
5 

C4S2.0 
220 
264 
42 
402 
358 
2.00 
2.67 
0.32 
4.0 
3.75 
1.020 
14 

C4S3.0 
220 
244 
42 
402 
358 
3.00 
3.60 
0.22 
6.0 
3.47 
1.019 
14 

C4S3.5 
220 
244 
42 
402 
358 
3.50 
3.60 
0.22 
7.0 
3.05 
0.997 
14 

C4S4.0 
220 
244 
42 
436 
358 
4.00 
3.60 
0.22 
8.0 
2.65 
0.959 
14 

IA2R(17) 
178 
306 
18 
602 
526 
2.99 
2.47 
0.24 
6.0 
4.64 
0.993 
18 

IC2R(19) 
178 
310 
34 
576 
526 
2.95 
4.38 
0.24 
5.9 
5.11 

Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.