Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Axial compression capacity of circular CFST columns transversely T

strengthened by FRP
⁎
Esra Mete Güneyisia, , Abdikarim Idiris Nourb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Gaziantep University, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey
b
Faculty of Engineering, Amoud University, Borama, Awdal, Somalia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) jackets have been recently used for strengthening purpose of concrete filled steel
Axial capacity tube (CFST) composite columns and also for the suppression of outward local buckling that CFST columns may
CFST column suffer. This study intends to investigate the axial compression capacity of circular CFST columns transversely
Fiber reinforced polymer strengthened by FRP. For this, an attempt has been made to implement gene expression programming (GEP)
Experimental database
technique for the development of axial capacity of confined CFST prediction model. The database required for
Modeling
Strengthening
the derivation of the GEP model is based on the extensive experimental results of the FRP confined CFST columns
tested in compression (92 test specimens). Moreover, these test specimens wrapped with the carbon or glass fiber
sheets have different length to diameter ratios of 2.0–4.5. The input predictor variables used in the study are the
properties of the FRP (the type, thickness and sheet wrap layers, tensile strength and elastic modulus of FRP), the
steel tube (outer diameter, thickness, length and tensile strength of steel tube) and unconfined concrete (com-
pressive strength of in-filled concrete). To verify the effectiveness of the model, the values from GEP were
examined statistically against those of existing equations given by various researchers. After analyzing and
comparing the proposed model with the existing formulas, it was found that the results obtained by GEP have
significantly less errors and far more accurate.

1. Introduction
Concrete-filled steel tubes (CFSTs) have been extensively used as
columns in many modern structural systems [1]. It utilizes the various
advantages of different materials and combines them together in a steel
tube column with filled-in concrete [2]. The steel tube provides as a
form and outer confinement for the concrete, and the concrete core
restrains the inward buckling deformation of the steel tube [1,3,4].
Therefore, the CFST column combines the beneficial qualities of both
concrete and steel [4–7]. However, CFST columns can still suffer from
certain shortcomings [2,8,9]. As Choi and Xiao [2] reports, at max-
imum yield strength, the steel tube in CFST tends to undergo serious
deformation and the outward local buckling can still occur. Other re-
searchers [1,3,8,10] also found out the reduction of strength and duc-
tility. Consequently, the tube loses its strength and fails in a brittle
manner [2].
To overcome this deficiency, the outward local buckling deforma-
tion of the steel tube can be suppressed and even prevented effectively
by wrapping with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) for strengthening
purpose [1–3,5,8–20]. Because of the additional confinement from FRP
wrap or from the original steel tube, for the CFST strengthened by FRP,
both the inward and the outward local buckling deformations of the
steel tube are constrained, so the ductility and the strength of the
column can be considerably enhanced [1]. In addition, the load-car-
rying capacity of CFST columns can be improved with FRP confinement
[17,19,20–24]. For example, Shen et al. [23] investigated the axial
property and failure mechanism of centrically loaded stub and slender
CFST columns partially wrapped by FRP. Similarly, Wang et al. [24]
studied CFRP strengthened circular thin walled CFST stub columns
under eccentric compression. They experimentally and numerically
discussed the beneficial effects of FRP wrapping. To sum up, the FRP
confined CFST column system could be an excellent solution for the
problems of CFST systems by providing additional transverse confine-
ment for the composite materials [2,19].
It is worth noting that the behaviour of FRP confined members not
only depends on the mechanical properties of the unconfined concrete
and fiber polymers, but also on the other parameters like the fiber type,
orientation, number of layers, sequence in applying the FRP layers, and
exposure conditions [25–27]. To discover the best configuration in the
FRP confined column system, some studies regarding the use of FRP

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eguneyisi@gantep.edu.tr (E.M. Güneyisi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.056
Received 11 January 2019; Received in revised form 18 April 2019; Accepted 19 April 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Lists of symbols and acronyms Nu,c calculated axial load carrying capacity
Nu,e experimental axial load carrying capacity
Ac cross-sectional area of concrete p mean of predicted value
Acsf total cross-sectional area of the FRP confined CFST column pi predicted value
Af cross-sectional area of FRP jacket R correlation coefficient
As cross-sectional area of steel tf thickness of ply multiplied by numbers of FRP layers
Asc cross-sectional area of composite section ts wall thickness of the steel tube
ci constants in GEP model ξs confinement factor of CFST
D outer diameter of the column ξf confinement factor of FRP jacket
di dependent variables in GEP model Atan inverse of tangent
Ef elastic modulus of FRP CCFST confined concrete filled steel tube
fc′ compressive strength of standard concrete cylinders CFRP carbon fiber reinforced polymer
(Φ150 × 300 mm) CFST concrete-filled steel tube
fcc′ compressive strength of the confined concrete COV coefficient of variation
fcsf nominal compressive strength ETs expression trees
ff tensile strength of FRP FRP fiber-reinforced polymer
fl lateral confinement pressure of FRP reinforced CFST GA genetic algorithm
column GEP gene-expression programming
fy yield strength of steel GFRP glass fiber reinforced polymer
k confinement effectiveness coefficient GP genetic programming
L length of the column MAPE mean absolute percent error
ln natural logarithm MSE mean square error
M mean RMSE root mean square error
m mean of measured value SD standard deviation
mi measured value Sqrt square root
n number of data samples Sub-ET sub expression trees
Nu axial load-carrying capacity

confinement have been conducted, though infrequent and very limited
[2,28]. For example, Parvin and Jamwal [28] explores the effect of ply
angle and ply stacking sequence combined with wrap thickness of FRP
confined short columns through nonlinear finite element analysis. The
performance of numerical models with ‘‘angle-hoop-angle’’ and ‘‘hoop-
angle-hoop’’ ply configurations were compared, where the terms
‘‘angle’’ and ‘‘hoop’’ indicate that wraps oriented at an angle of 450 and
00 in reference to circumferential direction, respectively. The test result
showed that the ply configuration affected the axial stress and strain. It
was also found that the increase in wrap thickness resulted in the en-
hancement of ultimate strength and ductility of the concrete cylinders.
The first to propose this FRP jacketing technique to the CFST col-
umns was Xiao et al. in 2005 [11] and entitled it confined concrete
filled steel tube (CCFST). Abdalla et al. [9] states their study that the
most favorable confinement is when the fibers are aligned along with
the direction of hoop stresses. This jacketing technique enhances two
features of the CFST performance. First, the concrete core compressive
strength considerably increases due to the wrap’s confinement. Sec-
ondly, due to the FRP jacketing, the outward buckling of the steel tube
is delayed, that could extend the linear portion of the load-deformation
curve [9].
Right after Xiao et al.’s initial study, the idea of CCFST have gained
the interest of some scholars and a considerable amount of effort has
been dedicated to develop a better understanding on the concepts of
such confinement. A number of the studies are available in the open
literature. For instance, Tao et al. [5] conducted an experimental test of
the axial behaviour of CFST stub columns reinforced with carbon fiber
polymer (CFRP) composites. The test results showed that the CFRP
jackets could effectively improve the load bearing capacity of the cir-
cular columns. It was also found that when the number of the CFRP
layers increases, the load bearing capacity increases, but the ductility
decreases. They also proposed a simple formula for predicting the
bearing capacity of circular CFST stub columns wrapped with CFRP. In
the study of Liu and Lu [15], the capacity of FRP confined CFST col-
umns under axial compression was also investigated. The influence of
the quantity and the type of FRP, the thickness of steel tube and the
infill concrete strength were the main study parameters. The test results
exhibited that the bearing capacity of short FRP-CFST column was very
much higher than those of CFST column. Moreover, they used the ul-
timate equilibrium method to calculate the bearing capacity of the FRP-
CFST columns. Hu et al. [10] presented an experimental study of the
behaviour of FRP-confined circular CFSTs under axial compression. The
main experimental parameters were the stiffness of the FRP wrap and
the thickness of the steel tube. The results revealed that the FRP wrap
significantly delayed and even completely restrained the development
of local buckling deformation in the steel tube. Consequently, both the
load-carrying capacity and ductility of CFST could be considerably
enhanced with FRP confinement. The behaviour of the in-filled con-
crete was also found to be considerably improved from the confinement
of the FRP wrap.
In the view of aforementioned research cases, very few authors
propose a formula for the axial capacity of confined CFST. To contribute
towards this end, the current study intends to develop a mathematical
model for ultimate capacity of FRP confined CFST. For this, knowing
the gene expression programming (GEP) is powerful tool in modeling
and solving complex nonlinear problems in different fields, GEP tech-
nique is utilized to build the model. Taking the advantage of the
available experimental data presented in previous published literatures
(92 test results), the authors propose the first ever GEP based model
formula for computing the ultimate capacity of FRP-CFST columns. The
input variables used for the derivation of the proposed model depends
on the properties of the FRP, steel tube, and unconfined concrete. For
FRP, parameters like fiber type, thickness of FRP wrapping layer, tensile
strength and elastic modulus of fibers were taken into account. For steel
tube, the geometric parameters (cross-sectional properties) and me-
chanical parameters (material strength) were considered. The com-
pressive strength of the unconfined concrete was also included in the
developed model. A critical comparison between the experimental re-
sults and those obtained from the analytical model was done for this
type of columns. Finally, to test the benefits of the proposed model
presented in this paper, its prediction performance was statistically
compared with the corresponding findings of Tao et al. [5], Lu et al.

418
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

[16], Wei et al. [20], and Park et al. [29]. fcsf

= 1 + 1.27ξs + 1.28ξf
fc′ (5a)
2. Existing formulations for FRP confined CFST columns under
where fcsf = the nominal compressive strength which reflects the effects
axial compression
of the confinement of the steel tube and FRP wrap; and Acsf = the total
cross-sectional area of the FRP-CFST columns.
In order to better reflect the performance of the proposed model for
In the study of Park et al. [29], two axial design formulas were
calculating the axial load-carrying capacity (Nu) of FRP confined cir-
compared. In the first one, by utilizing the ACI 440 code, the Nu of CFST
cular CFST columns, a comparison between the proposed model and the
reinforced by FRP is expressed by the following equation:
existing analytical relations suggested by Tao et al. [5], Lu et al. [16],
Wei et al. [20], and Park et al. [29] was made. Regarding the existing Nu = As f y + Ac 0.85fcc′ (6)
formulations, more detailed explanations are given below.
For example, Tao et al. [5] proposed a new formulation based on the In which
previous studies by Han et al. [30] for CFST column and Yu et al. [31]
⎡ f f ⎤
for CFRP jacketed concrete. Then, the following formula is given in fcc′ = fc′ ⎢2.254 1 + 7.94 l − 2 l − 1.254⎥
fc′ fc′ (7a)
their study: ⎣ ⎦

Nu = (1 + 1.02ξs ) fc′ Asc + 1.15ξf fc′ Ac
In which
Asc = As + Ac (2a)
As f y
ξs =
Ac fc′ (2b)
Af f f
ξf =
Ac fc′ (2c)
where Asc = the cross-sectional area of composite section; Ac = the
cross-sectional area of concrete; As = the cross-sectional area of steel
tube; Af = the cross-sectional area of FRP jacket; fc′ = the compressive
strength of concrete; f f = the tensile strength of FRP; f y = the yield
strength of steel; ξs = the confinement factor of CFST; and ξf = the
confinement factor of CFRP jacket.
In the study of Lu et al. [16], the prediction of Nu of FRP confined
CFST column was related to the strength contributions of the steel tube
and the concrete core. Moreover, in determination of the strength of the
concrete, the effect of the steel tube confinement and FRP confinement
were included. Therefore, the Nu is provided as follows:
Nu = (1 + 1.8ξs + 1.15ξf ) fc′ Ac
Wei et al. [18] also considered the composite action and proposed
the following equation for the Nu of FRP-CFST columns.
Nu = fcsf Acsf
In which
(1) where fcc′ = the compressive strength of the confined concrete sug-
gested by Mander et al. [32] and fl = the lateral confinement pressure
of FRP reinforced CFST column.
In the second one, they used a simplified confined concrete model in
accordance with the earlier researches by Richart et al. [33] and Lam
and Teng [34] and ignored the coefficient 0.85 (indicating uncertainty
of the concrete part) shown in Eq. (6). Thus, the Nu was proposed as:
Nu = As f y + Ac fcc′ (8)
In which
fcc′ fl
=1+k
fc′ fc′ (9a)
where k = the confinement effectiveness coefficient.
3. Summary of experimental data
An extensive literature survey has been carried out and a set of
experimental data that were previously published have been assembled
[1,3–5,8–20,29,35]. Benefiting from the experimental database, a new
predictive model of the ultimate capacity of FRP confined CFST col-
umns were proposed in this paper. A total of 92 experimental test re-
sults from the technical literature were analyzed. The details of the
(3) parameters presented in each test are given in Table 1. The database
contains two types of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP), namely, as carbon
fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber reinforced polymer
(GFRP). The other study parameters considered are the thickness of FRP
(4) wrapping layers (tf) (tf = thickness of ply × number of layers) ranging
from 0.111 to 0.56 mm for CFRP and 0.169 to 0.68 mm for GFRP, the
tensile strength of FRP (ff) varied from 897 to 4900 MPa for CFRP and

Table 1
Summary of the experimental database of FRP confined CFST columns.
Reference # of data Fiber type tf (mm) ff (MPa) Ef (GPa) D (mm) ts (mm) L (mm) f y (MPa) f 'c (MPa) Nu,e (kN)

[1] 2 GFRP1 0.51–0.68 1825.5 80.1 202–204 1–2 400 226–231 35.9–42.2 1283–1593
[3] 3 GFRP 0.17–0.51 1825.5 80.1 165 2.75 450 385.9 43.8 1460–1500
[4] 6 CFRP2 0.111–0.222 4900 228 133 4.5 400–600 360 53.1 2009.6–2264.3
[5] 4 CFRP 0.17–0.34 4212 255 156–250 3 470–750 230 46.0 1890–4780
[8,11] 4 CFRP 2.8–5.6 897 64.9 152 2.95 381 356 46.6 2233–3439
[9,18] 18 GFRP 0.352 3400 72 114–167 3.1–5.6 250–350 350 43.0–56.9 1241–2124
[10,13,14] 9 GFRP 0.17–0.68 1825.5 80.1 202–204 1–2 400 226–242 35.9–42.2 1710–2561
[12,29] 7 CFRP 0.111–0.333 3500 235 139.8 3.2–6.6 620 295–357 36.0 1409.2–2274.6
[15,16] 7 CFRP 0.111–0.333 3550 250 126–130 3–5 400 248 33.9–47.6 1330–1685
3 GFRP 0.169–0.507 2930 109 128 4 400 248 33.9 1355–1845
[17] 10 CFRP 0.167–0.334 4500 228 127–136 1.5–6 381–408 330 44.0 1018–2105
[19] 1 CFRP 0.131 4300 234 100 2 300 355 23.5 760
[20] 8 CFRP 0.111–0.222 4067 239.8 133 3–7.5 400 364.9 25.9–28.4 1451–2363
[35] 10 CFRP 0.167–0.334 4900 230 127–136 1.5–6 400 310–350 40.9–42.8 1086–2186

1
GFRP = Glass fiber reinforced polymer.
2
CFRP = Carbon fiber reinforced polymer.

419
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

1825.5 to 3400 MPa for GFRP, while the elastic modulus of FRP (Ef)
ranging between 64.9 and 255 GPa and 72 to 109 GPa for CFRP and
GFRP, respectively. For the CFST, the parameters that were considered
are the outer diameter (D), length (L) and the thickness (ts) of the steel
tube, varied from 100 to 250 mm, 1.0 to 7.5 mm and 250 to 750 mm,
respectively. The in-filled concrete compressive strength (f ′c ) and tensile
strength of the steel tube (fy) varied from 23.5 to 56.9 MPa and 226 to
385.9 MPa, respectively.
To show how the collective database (both input and output para-
meters) spreads, a frequency distribution plots and a cumulative per-
centage line (which is used to determine the number of observations
that lie below or above a particular point, expressed as a percentage)

60 120% 45 120%
Frequency Frequency
40
50 Cumulative % 100% Cumulative % 100%
35

40 80% 30 80%

25
Frequency

Frequency
30 60% 60%
20

20 40% 15 40%

10
10 20% 20%
5
0 0% 0 0%
CFRP GFRP <0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 >0.5
FRP type
tf (mm)
a) b)
40 120%
45 120%
Frequency
Frequency
35 40
Cumulative % 100% Cumulative % 100%
30 35
80%
25 30 80%
Frequency

Frequency

25
20 60% 60%
20
15
40% 15 40%
10
10
20% 20%
5 5

0 0% 0 0%
<950 950-1900 1900-28502850-38003800-47504750-5700 >5700 <50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 >300
ff (MPa) Ef (GPa)

c) d)
70 120% 35 120%
Frequency Frequency
60 Cumulative % 30 Cumulative % 100%
100%

50 25
80% 80%
Frequency

20
Frequency

40
60% 60%
30 15

40% 40%
20 10

20% 5 20%
10

0 0% 0 0%
<50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 >300 <1.3 1.3-2.6 2.6-3.9 3.9-5.2 5.2-6.5 6.5-7.8 >7.8
D (mm) ts (mm)
e) f)
Fig. 1. Bar charts of the variables used in the proposed model.

420
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

has been drawn on the bar charts of Fig. 1a–j. For example, Fig. 1a, we
can observe that 57 of FRP wrap types used in the database are CFRP
sheets while the remaining 35 data are GFRP jackets. In Fig. 1b–j, the
data has broken into reasonably sized groups to reduce the amount of
variability in the database. The majority of the FRP wrap thickness (tf)
used this study falls between the ranges of 0.3–0.4 (39 data) as shown
in Fig. 1b. More than 1/3 of the collective FRP sheets has a tensile
strength (ff) ranging between 2850 and 3800 MPa (Fig. 1c). On the
other hand, the dispersion of the experimental output parameter (the
experimental axial capacity (Nu,e)) can be seen in Fig. 1j. The majority
of Nu,e falls between two ranges of 900 to 2700 (that is a combination of
two class sized groups: 900 to 1800 (45 data falls on this range) and
1800 to 2700 (42 data)).
It was noted that the concrete compressive strength (f ′c ) given in the
experimental database was generally measured from standard cylinder
of ϕ150 × 300 mm. Nevertheless, in some studies, it was found out that
different test standards were used for the compressive strength of the
concrete. To homogenize it, such compressive strength values were
converted to that of ϕ150 × 300 mm cylindrical specimens considering
the conversion relations suggested by Eurocode 2 [36] and provided in
the other researches [37–39].
The type of loading application which was monotonically axial
compression on circular specimen, and FRP wrapping around the steel
tube in a transverse direction (ply angle = 00) were considered for all
experimental database. Fig. 2 shows the geometry of the cross-section
and testing arrangement of fiber reinforced polymer confined CFST
column. In Fig. 2, D, L, and ts are the outer diameter, length of the
specimen and thickness of the unconfined concrete, respectively
whereas tf is the thickness of FRP.
Genetic expression programming (GEP) technique was utilized to
obtain meaningful relationships between those variables presented in
Table 1. To improve the generalization capability and to avoid the
common problems of over fitting in genetic algorithm, the available
experimental database were randomly subdivided into two sets,
namely, training set which involves in the modeling process, and the
testing set which is to evaluate the performance of the finest model
obtained by GEP on data that didn’t involve in building of the model. To
pick up a reliable data division, a number of combinations of the
training and testing sets were taken into account. The choice was in a
way that both sets represent almost similar populations such that the
maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation of the parameters
are to be consistent in the training and testing data sets. Thus, 76% of
the whole experimental database (70 data) were used as training set
whereas the remaining 24% (22 data) were employed as a testing set.
The statistical analyses of the whole data are presented in Table 2. Then
after, the best GEP model was derived by considering the simplicity of
the model and measuring statistically the goodness of fit and error
values. More detailed explanations regarding fundamental aspects of
gene expression programming and development of the GEP based
model are given in the next section.
4. Details of modeling approach and construction of the GEP
model
The genetic algorithm (GA) proposed by Holland is a probabilistic
search technique that transforms a set (known as population) of

70 120% 70 120%
Frequency Frequency
60 Cumulative % 60 Cumulative%
100% 100%

50 50
80% 80%

40 40
Frequency
Frequency

60% 60%
30 30

40% 40%
20 20

20% 10 20%
10

0 0% 0 0%
<140 140-279 280-419 420-559 560-699 700-839 >840 <80 80-160 160-240 240-320 320-400 400-480 >480
L (mm) fy (MPa)
g) h)
60 120% 50 120%
Frequency
Frequency 45
Cumulative%
50 Cumulative% 100% 100%
40
35
40 80% 80%
30
Frequency
Frequency

30 60% 25 60%
20
20 40% 40%
15
10
10 20% 20%
5

0 0% 0 0%
<10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60 <900 900-1800 1800-27002700-36003600-45004500-5400 >5400
fc (MPa) Nu,e (kN)
i) j)
Fig. 1. (continued)

421
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Fig. 2. Cross-section and testing arrangement of fiber reinforced polymer confined CFST column.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for the variables utilized in the model development.
Item tf (mm) ff (MPa) Ef (GPa) D (mm) ts (mm) L (mm) f y (MPa) f 'c (MPa) Nu,e (kN)

Sample size 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Mean 0.5 3538.8 168.7 145.2 3.7 409.2 317.3 42.2 1836.2
Std. Deviation 0.86 1119.22 79.65 30.79 1.50 105.08 51.48 8.04 586.06
Std. Error 0.09 116.69 8.30 3.21 0.16 10.96 5.37 0.84 61.10
Variance 0.7 1252650.3 6344.8 947.9 2.3 11041.5 2650.2 64.6 343471.0
COV 1.89 0.32 0.47 0.21 0.41 0.26 0.16 0.19 0.32
Kurtosis 27.63 −0.25 −1.89 1.90 −0.22 1.89 −1.04 −0.16 8.08
Skewness 5.17 −0.74 −0.31 1.50 0.34 1.08 −0.77 −0.02 2.19
Min. value 0.111 897 64.9 100 1 250 226 23.5 760
Max. value 5.6 4900 255 250 7.5 750 385.9 56.9 4780
Range 5.5 4003.0 190.1 150.0 6.5 500.0 159.9 33.4 4020.0
Mid range 2.9 2898.5 160.0 175.0 4.3 500.0 306.0 40.2 2770.0
Sum 42.0 325569.0 15519.4 13362.6 338.5 37650.0 29194.9 3880.9 168926.2

mathematical objects each with an associated fitness value into a new
population of offspring using Darwinian principle of natural selection
[40,41]. The mathematical objects are typically fixed-length binary
strings that are traditionally encoded 0s and 1s [42]. The process
usually starts from randomly generated individuals and in each gen-
eration, the fitness of every individual is evaluated. Then, the in-
dividuals are selected based on their fitness and modified again to form
a new population. The new population is then used in the next process
of the algorithm and it continues till a satisfactory fitness level is
reached [43].
Genetic programming (GP) is proposed by Koza [41] and it applies
the approach of the GA, that why it is considered as an extension form
of GA [43]. GP evolves hundreds or thousands of computer programs to
solve the problem considered [41]. These programs represent in
memory as a syntax trees rather than fixed length binary strings [42].
GP starts with an initial population of arbitrarily generated computer
programs which is composed of functions and terminals that are sui-
table to the domain of the problem and then refines those computer
programs through the processes of mutation and cross over until the
best solution emerge [41]. GP generally uses the functional program-
ming languages (i.e. LISP) for expressing the solutions of the problems
[43].
Gene expression programming (GEP) invented by Ferreira [44] is a
new extension of GA’s and GP’s. The individuals in GEP are encoded as
linear character strings of fixed length to represent the solutions which
are then expressed into expression trees of different shapes and sizes
[42,44]. In GEP, there are two main players: the chromosomes and the
expression trees (ETs). The chromosomes usually compose more than
one gene of equal length, and expression trees are the expressions of the
genetic information encoded in the chromosomes [42]. The concept of
chromosomes and the ETs are what enable the GEP to considerably
solve very complex scientific problems [42,45]. GEP composes of five
main components: a set of functions, a terminal set, fitness function,
control parameter and termination condition [46]. The fundamental
process of GEP begins with a random generation of the chromosomes of
initial population. Each chromosome is then converted into expression
trees and the fitness of the individuals is evaluated. Followed by that,
the individuals are selected according to their performance in that
particular environment to reproduce with modification, giving off-
spring to the new members of the next generation. Then, the individuals
of this new generation are subjected to the similar developmental
process. This process is repeated for a certain number of generations
until a best solution is found [44].
It is also worthy to note that the capability of GEP is that, it explores
the multigenic system to solve nonlinear problems of multiple variables
in one go. For that, chromosomes composed of n different genes are

422
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Fig. 3. Expression trees for the proposed model [d0: FRP type, d1: FRP thickness (mm), d2: tensile strength of FRP (MPa), d3: elastic modulus of FRP (GPa), d4:
diameter of the steel tube (mm), d5: thickness of the steel tube (mm). d6: length of the specimen (mm), d7: yield strength of steel (MPa). d8: concrete compressive
strength (MPa), and c0, c1, c2 are constants].

used to evolve n different sub-models that classify n different classes.
Therefore, the evolution of one sub-model encoded in a particular gene
is intricately connected with the evolution of the other sub-models
encoded in the other genes [47]. Moreover, as the inventor of GEP (C.
Ferreira) states that the creation of genome and expression trees which
are totally separate entities with distinct functions allows the algorithm
to perform with high efficiency that greatly surpasses existing adaptive
techniques [44].
In the current study, for the development of the GEP predictive
model, various independent variables as input parameters (terminals)
were involved to estimate dependent variable (output parameter)
which is the axial capacity of FRP confined CFST columns (Nu,c). A set
of function has also been chosen to create the chromosomes. To this
aim, nine input parameters were used (see Table 1), namely, d0: FRP
type, d1: FRP thickness (mm), d2: tensile strength of FRP (MPa), d3:
elastic modulus of FRP (GPa), d4: diameter of the steel tube (mm), d5:
thickness of the steel tube (mm), d6: length of the test specimen (mm),
d7: yield strength of steel (MPa), and d8: concrete compressive strength
(MPa). As mentioned in Section 2, in this study, two types of FRP (i.e.
CFRP and GFRP) were studied. Before generating the GEP model, FRP
type was described as a numerical value. Thus, CFRP and GFRP were
assigned as 1 and 2, respectively. For the functional set, different

423
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Fig. 3. (continued)

mathematical operations such as basic arithmetic operations
(+,−,*,/), square root (Sqrt), natural logarithm (ln) and inverse of
tangent (Atan) were employed. For the purpose of developing the
predictive GEP model, a computer program called GeneXproTools 5.0
[48] was utilized to obtain a meaningful relationship between the input
and output variables. The program was run several times until there
was no longer any other significant improvement in the performance of
the model or until the finest model was obtained. The head size and the
number of genes are the chromosome architectures of the models
evolved by GEP. The head size governs the complexity of each term in

424
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Table 3 d2
GEP parameter settings for the proposed model. N3 = ln ⎜⎛ ⎛⎜ ⎟
⎞ + d2 − d6⎟⎞ × (d4 + d 0)
⎝ ⎝ − 11.477844d1 ⎠ ⎠ (11c)
P1 Function set +,-,*,/,Sqrt,Ln,Arctan
d2
P2 Number of generation 198,479 N4 = d6 + ⎛ ⎜
⎞ ⎟

P3 Chromosomes 100
⎝ d4 + d7 − 7.846009 − d6 − d3 + 7.846009d8 ⎠ (11d)
P4 Head size 12
216.113947 ⎞
P5 Linking function Addition N5 = Tan−1 (d 0) × ⎜⎛12.059387 + 2d1 − ⎛ ⎜ − d7⎞⎟
⎟

P6 Number of genes 6 ⎝ ⎝ d0 ⎠ ⎠ (11e)

P7 Mutation rate 0.044
P8 Inversion rate 0.1
d − 16.163086 − d3 + d8 d 0 ⎞
P9 One-point recombination rate 0.3 N6 = ⎜⎛ ⎛ 8
⎜ × (−15.777283) ⎟⎞ − 16.163086
⎟

P10 Two-point recombination rate 0.3 ⎝ ⎝ 11.109405d 0 − 15.777283d5 ⎠ ⎠

P11 Gene recombination rate 0.1 (11f)
P12 Gene transposition rate 0.1
P13 Constants per gene 3 where d0 = FRP type; d1 = FRP thickness in mm; d2 = tensile strength
P14 Lower/Upper bound of constants −20/20 of FRP in MPa; d3 = elastic modulus of FRP in GPa; d4 = diameter of
the steel tube in mm; d5 = thickness of the steel tube in mm;
d6 = length of the specimen in mm; d7 = yield strength of steel in MPa;
7
and d8 = concrete compressive strength in MPa.
6 As shown in Fig. 3, each input parameter has been used more than
twice. Regarding how many times each input parameter appears Fig. 4
5 is plotted. The most repeated parameter is the concrete compressive
strength (d8) which appears 6 times out of the 52 variables (38 input
Frequency

4 parameters (di) and 14 constants (c0, c1 and c2), that is approximately

11.5% of the variables in expression trees. d0 and d1 are the next most
3 repeated parameters which shows up to 5 times, that is 9.6% of vari-
ables used in Fig. 3. And the least used input variables are d2 and d5 (3
2 times each), which cover 5.8% of the variables. The remaining input
parameters each appears 4 times (7.7%), as shown in Fig. 4. As can be
1
seen in the ET’s drawn in Fig. 3 and also Eq. (10) as well, the input
parameters covers up to 73.1% and the remaining 26.9% are constants.
0
FRP type tf (mm) ff (MPa) Ef (GPa) D (mm) ts (mm) L (mm) fy (MPa) f'c (MPa)

Variables 5. Model assessment and discussion of research findings

Fig. 4. Number of appearance of each parameter in the proposed GEP model.

the model whereas the number of genes per chromosomes determines
the number of terms in the model.
For the derivation of the GEP model, the input parameters di
(i = 0,1,2…,8) and the constants (c0, c1 and c2) has been parsed into
expression trees (ETs) and drawn in Fig. 3. It is noted that GEP uses
learning algorithms in which numerical constants are crucial for an
efficient modeling. Numerical constants are easily implemented in the
GEP. For encoding the random numerical constants, an additional gene
domain is utilized by the GEP. For a gene, the constants are randomly
generated at the initial stage of a run, however, their circulation is
assured by the typical genetic operators of mutation, transposition and
recombination. The number of the constants for each gene is defined to
provide enough diversity without inflating structural complexity.
[48,49]. In this study, the proposed GEP based mathematical for-
mulation used for the prediction of the axial capacity of confined CFST
(Nu,c in kN) is presented in Eq. (10). In GEP technique, the sub ex-
pression trees are utilized to generate the model and each sub expres-
sion tree represents a gene assigned for the modeling. As observed in
Fig. 3, there are six different sub expression trees (Sub-ET), indicating
genes. For this, Eqn (10) consists of six genes linked by addition.
Moreover, various GEP parameters involved for the derivation of the
predictive model is presented in Table 3.
Nu, c = N1 + N2 + N3 + N4 + N5 + N6
In which
d3 + 2d8
N1 = (d1 d7) + d7 × ⎛ ⎜
⎞ ⎟
⎝ 12.355102(d3 − d4 ) ⎠
Tan−1 (d6)
N2 = d5 ⎛⎜ ⎛ −1
⎜
⎞ + d8 + d4⎞⎟ ⎟ [29] were processed through several statistical measures, such as mean
⎝ ⎝ Tan (d5) − 8.626709d1 ⎠ ⎠ (11b)
In order to reveal the prediction performance of GEP model, the
comparisons were made with the experimental results and the calcu-
lated GEP results of the ultimate capacity of FRP confined CFST and
graphically depicted in Fig. 5a and 5b. As it is illustrated in Fig. 5a and
5b, the relative difference between the calculated GEP results (both
from training and testing sets) and the experimental results is very
small. Thus, it can be deduced that there is almost a perfect agreement
between the two results. Besides, it can be observed that there is a
strong correlation coefficient (R) (0.952 for training and 0.965 for
testing) between the predicted and experimental values. Since “R”
measures the degree of fitness between two variables (experimental vs.
predicted) calculated in Eq. (12). On a statistical point of view, if R
approaches to 1, it signifies that there are good correlations. Thus, the
GEP model can be judged as fairly accurate.
∑ (mi − m)(pi − p)
R=
∑ (mi − m)2 (pi − p)2 (12)
The prediction capability of the proposed model in terms of the
normalized value (Nu,c/Nu,e) vs. the experimental axial capacity (Nu,e)
values has been shown in Fig. 6, to further check the degree of accuracy
of the predictive model. In order to see the variation of the model
prediction from the experimental results, an error band of ±10% is also
provided in the figure. A frequency value equal to 1.0 is marked as a
normalized value, which can be regarded as the perfect estimation. As
(10) seen in Fig. 6, the majority of values fall very closely around the ideal fit
line of 1.0 (ranging from 0.9 to 1.1). That indicates the predictions of
the GEP model are in a close agreement with the experimental results.
Knowing the predictive capability of GEP, it’s better to compare the
GEP results with existing equations. The proposed GEP based equation
(11a)
results together with the findings of other equations proposed by Tao
et al. [5], Lu et al. [16], Wei et al. [20], Park et al. 1 and Park et al. 2
(M), standard deviation (SD) and coefficients of variation (COV) as

425
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Experimental value Predicted by GEP model (R = 0.952)

5000

4000

Axial capacity (kN)

3000

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Training data number

Experimental value Predicted by GEP model (R = 0.965)

5000

4000
Axial capacity (kN)

3000

2000

1000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Testing data number

Fig. 5. Performance of the GEP model to predict the experimental result: (a) training data set and (b) testing data set.

presented in Table 4. Having a mean of 1.006 indicates that the average
value of the proposed GEP model has almost a perfect matching with
the normalized value (1.0). Meanwhile, the GEP model appears to have
the least SD and COV values compared with the findings obtained from
the other existing expressions. This once more proves the prediction
power of the proposed model. On the other hand, Park et al. 2 [29]
appears to have the most dispersed values, having a mean of 1.208, SD
of 0.220, and COV of 0.182.
In addition to the given results in Table 4, more commonly used
statistical verification criterions such as Mean Absolute Percentage
Error (MAPE), Mean Square Error (MSE) and Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE) are presented in Table 5. The definitions of those parameters
are presented on Eqs. (13), (14) and (15), respectively. As evident on
Table 5, it can be noted the MAPE values of Tao et al. [5], Lu et al. [16],
Wei et al. [20], Park et al. 1 [29] and Park et al. 2 [29] models are
14.32, 19.44, 20.80, 17.32 and 23.32, respectively whereas that of the
training set of GEP model is only 6.71. Similar to the MAPE results, the
proposed model has much lower MSE and RMSE values compared to
the other findings. The highest error among the existing relations that
this paper uses as a benchmarking purpose is Park et al. 2 [29] having a
MAPE, MSE and RMSE of 23.32, 250772.6, 399.4, respectively. For
further analyzing the effectiveness of the existing models and the new
formulation developed in this study, Fig. 7 is plotted in which the
variation in the average absolute errors is shown at various intervals of
the experimental axial load carrying capacity (Nu,e) values of Table 1.
The error analysis as seen from the figure demonstrates that the existing
models have comparatively high fluctuations and greater error values
(ranging from 11.4 to 32.8%, depending on Nu,e intervals). However,

426
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

+10%
Nu,c/Nu,e

1.1

0.9
-10%
0.8

0.7

0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Nu,e (kN)

Fig. 6. Prediction capability of GEP model in terms of the normalized value vs. the experimental axial capacity value.

Table 4 of 1.0 is marked to better highlight which model (the GEP or the ex-
Ratio of the axial capacity predicted by various equations and that obtained isting relations) is/are accurate for the prediction of ultimate strength
from the experiments. of the confined CFST. Apparently, it can be revealed from Fig. 8 that the
References Nu,c/Nu,e calculated results of GEP model has a close agreement with the ex-
perimental results, which indicates that the proposed model has a better
Min Max Mean Standard deviation COV generalization performance when compared to the existing relations.
On the other hand, Park et al. 2 expression [29] appears to be the most
Tao et al. [5] 0.74 1.72 1.034 0.170 0.165
Lu et al. [16] 0.91 1.79 1.177 0.174 0.148 overestimated relation among the other expressions. The closest rela-
Wei et al. [18] 0.86 1.85 1.187 0.191 0.161 tion to GEP model is the one proposed by Tao et al. [5]. However, this
Park et al. 1 [29] 0.86 1.66 1.142 0.167 0.146 relation does not have similar or even near predictive capability (lower
Part et al. 2 [29] 0.85 2.03 1.208 0.220 0.182 errors) (see Table 5) as the proposed GEP model.
Current study 0.79 1.43 1.006 0.101 0.101
As previously stated in Table 5 and Figs. 7 and 8, the proposed
model has better prediction (lower error values) and better general-
the errors for the GEP model are very close to each other for the spe- ization performance. However, to assess how the ratio of calculated to
cified intervals of Nu,e values, indicating 5.6 to 8.5% error. Indeed, it the experimental values are distributed on each relation, Fig. 9 is
can be seen that the proposed GEP model outperforms the other existing drawn. The model can be judged good if (Nu,c/Nu,e) is very close or
relations. equal to 1.0. As Fig. 9f visualizes, the majority of the results 69 out of
92 (that is 75% of the calculated GEP results) falls on the range 0.9 to
n
1 mi − pi 1.1, very few numbers have been shown below the lower point of 0.9
MAPE =
n
∑ mi
·100
i=1 (13) and above the upper bound of 1.1. This indicates the dispersion of the
GEP results is very small (see also Table 4, the SD = 0.101). In contrary,
n
∑i = 1 (mi − pi )2 the findings of all of the other relations are very much dispersed and
MSE =
n (14) less values falls near the normalized value. For instance, Tao et al. [5],
n
only 34 out of 92 falls within the range of 0.9–1.1, the remaining 58
∑i = 1 (mi − pi )2 data results are dispersed below and above the perfect estimator line,
RMSE =
n (15) that is 63% of the findings of Tao et al. [5] is out of required range for
their results to be judged good. Similarly, for Lu et al. model [16], only
where mi and pi represent measured values and predicted values, re-
36 of their findings fall between the ranges of 0.9–1.1, the remaining 56
spectively. And n is the number of the experimental data.
data (that is 61% of their results) is distributed above and below the
Once more, the results of the proposed GEP model are compared
normalized line. The results of Wei et al. [20] and Park et al. 1 [29]
with the results of existing expressions and this time the accuracy of the
behave similarly like the above two relations. The most overestimated
models is evaluated graphically, as shown in Fig. 8. A normalized value

Table 5
Statistical parameters of the GEP model and existing relations proposed by the researchers.
Parameters GEP model Existing expressions

Train Test Tao et al. [5] Lu et al. [16] Wei et al. [20] Park et al. 1 [29] Park et al. 2 [29]

Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) 6.71 8.97 14.32 19.44 20.80 17.32 23.32
Mean square error (MSE) 24887.8 45958.5 98631.4 191082.5 239619.7 151520.9 250772.6
Root mean square error (RMSE) 117.7 165.4 255.9 338.0 366.1 304.2 399.4

427
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

35

Nu,e”1500
30
1500<Nu,e”2000
2000<Nu,e”2500
25 2500<Nu,e
Average error (%)

20

15

10

0
GEP model Tao et al. [5] Lu et al. [16] Wei et al. [20] Park et al. 1 [29] Park et al. 2 [29]

Fig. 7. Comparison of the average absolute errors of the proposed model and existing ones with respect to the experimental axial capacity.

2.5

2.0

1.5
Nu,c/Nu,e

1.0

Nu,c/Nu,e Tao et al. [5] Nu,c/Nu,e Lu et al. [16]

0.5
Nu,c/Nu,e Wei et al. [20] Nu,c/Nu,e Park et al. 1 [29]

Nu,c/Nu,e Park et al. 2 [29] Nu,c/Nu,e GEP model

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No of data

Fig. 8. Overall tendency of the axial capacity prediction models.

relation appears to be Park et al. 2 [29], only 26 data results (that is
28% of the calculated results) falls on the range 0.9–1.1, most of the
remaining 66 data (that is 72% of calculated results) is high above the
normalized line. Once more, the results of Park et al. 2 [29] is dispersed
up to 2.1, (for Nu,c/Nu,e) that is far more than the normalize value of
1.0. Apparently, the proposed GEP based model overtops the existing
relations and in addition, it shows a superior predictive power and
perfect generalization ability.
Finally, the performance of the proposed model has been verified by
using the experimental data (shown in Table 6) which are not included
in training and testing process for the generation of the proposed GEP
model. The experimental data of the specimens presented in Table 6
have similar dimension or relatively larger scale than those given pre-
viously in Table 1. Then, these data are assessed by the proposed ex-
plicit formulation (Eq. (10)) and the findings are also depicted in
Table 6. It is observed that the normalized values (Nu,e/Nu,GEP) range
from 0.79 to 1.40 and yielding a mean of 1.07. This reveals a good
agreement between the prediction and experimental results.
6. Conclusions
Making the use of the gene expression programming (GEP) tech-
nique, and benefiting from available experimental database from the
scientific literature, a new mathematical formulation of the axial

428
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

40 40
Tao et al. [5] Lu et al. [16]
35 35

30 30

25 25
Frequency

Frequency
20 20

15 15
10 10
5
5
0
0
1.1-1.3

1.3-1.5

1.5-1.7

1.7-1.9

1.9-2.1
0.5-0.7

0.7-0.9

0.9-1.1
<0.5

>2.1

<0.5

0.5-0.7

0.7-0.9

0.9-1.1

1.1-1.3

1.3-1.5

1.5-1.7

1.7-1.9

1.9-2.1

>2.1
Nu,c/Nu.e
Nu,c/Nu.e
a) b)
40 40
Wei et al. [20] Park et al. 1 [29]
35 35

30 30

25 25
Frequency
Frequency

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5
0 0
0.7-0.9

0.9-1.1

1.1-1.3

1.3-1.5

1.5-1.7

1.7-1.9

1.9-2.1
<0.5

0.5-0.7

>2.1

0.5-0.7

0.7-0.9

0.9-1.1

1.1-1.3

1.3-1.5

1.5-1.7

1.7-1.9

1.9-2.1
<0.5

>2.1
Nu,c/Nu.e Nu,c/Nu.e
c) d)
40 80
Park et al. 2 [29] GEP model
35 70
30 60
25
50
Frequency
Frequency

20
40
15
30
10
20
5
10
0
0
0.5-0.7

0.7-0.9

1.1-1.3

1.3-1.5

1.5-1.7

1.7-1.9

1.9-2.1
<0.5

0.9-1.1

>2.1

0.5-0.7

0.7-0.9

0.9-1.1

1.1-1.3

1.3-1.5

1.5-1.7

1.7-1.9

1.9-2.1
<0.5

>2.1

Nu,c/Nu.e
Nu,c/Nu.e
e) f)
Fig. 9. Assessment of the calculated and experimental axial capacity using various approaches: (a) Tao et al. [5], (b) Lu et al. [16], (c) Wei et al. [20], (d) Park et al. 1
[29], (e) Park et al. 2 [29], and (f) GEP model.

capacity of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) confined concrete filled steel between the calculated GEP results and the experimental results
tube (CFST) columns is generated in this study. Based on the results and were very small. This indicates that the GEP model has more precise
the outcomes obtained from the above discussion, the following find- generalization capability.
ings need to be mentioned; • The empirical model obtained from the GEP was compared with
existing relations to examine the accuracy and the effectiveness of
• It was found that the GEP modeling technique is feasible to develop the model. On the basis of the results found, it was pointed out that
a mathematical formulation for the axial capacity of confined CFST. the proposed model yields more accurate results than the existing
The proposed GEP model exhibits a strong agreement with the ex- relations that were used as a benchmarking purpose.
perimental results. It was observed that the relative difference • The second equation proposed by Park et al. [29] appears to be the

429
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431

Table 6
Validation data and performance of the GEP model.
Reference Data no Fiber type tf (mm) ff (MPa) Ef (GPa) D (mm) ts (mm) L (mm) f y (MPa) f 'c (MPa) Nu,e (kN) Nu,e / Nu,GEP

[4] 1 CFRP 0.111 4900 228 133 4.5 800 360 53.1 1990.1 0.98
2 CFRP 0.222 4900 228 133 4.5 800 360 53.1 2140.2 1.05
3 CFRP 0.222 4900 228 133 4.5 1200 360 53.1 2015.2 1.31
[21] 4 CFRP 0.334 2878 244 165 2 500 275 25 1948.3 0.85
[22] 5 CFRP 0.222 3550 250 168 6 588 243 36 2360 1.14
6 CFRP 0.222 3550 250 168 6 1008 243 36 2200 1.40
[23] 7 CFRP 0.501 3510 243 140 6 450 348.6 25 2582.9 0.79
Mean 1.07

most overestimated equation among the existing relations. It ap-
pears to have the highest errors and the lowest generalization ca-
pacity, since the calculated results have high magnitude of scat-
tering, only 28% of values falls around the normalized value (1.0).
• The fitness accuracy of the model and existing equations has been
performed through several statistical evaluation criterions. It was
observed that the proposed model exhibits the least errors (MAPE,
MSE and RMSE) and the highest coefficient of correlation (R) of
0.952 and 0.965 for testing and training, respectively. This can be a
proof for the prediction power of the GEP.
• It is worth mentioning that the proposed GEP based model in this
paper is given in explicit form and contains a wide variation range of
the experimental input parameters. It provides to calculate the axial
capacity of both carbon and glass FRP strengthened CFST columns,
which allows the model to be utilized for more practical applica-
tions.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.056.
References
[1] Yu T, Hu YM, Teng JG. FRP-confined circular concrete-filled steel tubular columns
under cyclic axial compression. J Construct Steel Res 2014;94:33–48.
[2] Choi KK, Xiao Y. Analytical Model of circular cfrp confined concrete-filled steel
tubular columns under axial compression. J Compos Construct 2010;14(1):125–33.
[3] Teng JG, Hu YM. Theoretical model for FRP-confined circular concrete-filled steel
tubes under axial compression. In: Third international conference on FRP
Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2006); 2006. Miami, Florida, USA.
[4] Sun GS, Zhao YH, Gu W. Stability of concrete filled CFRP steel tube under axial
compression. Tubular structure XII; 2009. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
[5] Tao Z, Han LH, Zhuang JP. Axial loading behavior of CFRP strengthened concrete-
filled steel tubular stub columns. Adv Struct Eng 2007;1(10):37–46.
[6] Dong H, Li Y, Cao W, Qiao Q, Li R. Uniaxial compression performance of rectangular
CFST columns with different internal construction characteristics. Eng Struct
2018;176:763–75.
[7] He L, Zhao Y, Lin S. Experimental study on axially compressed circular CFST col-
umns with improved confinement effect. J Constr Steel Res 2018;140:74–81.
[8] Choi KK. Analytical and experimental studies on mechanical behavior of confined
concrete filled tubular columns PHD thesis University of Southern California; 2007
[9] Abdalla S, Abed F, AlHamaydeh M. Behavior of CFSTs and CCFSTs under quasi-
static axial compression. J Constr Steel Res 2013;90:235–44.
[10] Hu YM, Yu T, Teng JG. FRP-confined circular concrete-filled thin steel tubes under
axial compression. J Compos Construct 2011;5(15):850–60.
[11] Xiao Y, He W, Choi KK. Confined concrete-filled tubular columns. J Struct Eng
2005;3(131):488–97.
[12] Park JW, Hong YK, Hong GS, Choi SM. Experimental study on concrete steel cir-
cular tubes confined by carbon fiber sheet under axial compression loads. J
Earthquake Eng Soc Korea 2009;69(13):61–71.
[13] Hu YM, Yu T, Teng, JG. Axial compression tests on FRP-jacketed circular concrete-
filled thin steel tubes. In Chan SL, Editor, Proceedings of sixth international con-
ference on advances in steel, structures and progress in structural stability and
dynamics; 2009. p. 520–7. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
[14] Hu YM. Behaviour and modeling of FRP-confined hallow and concrete filled steel
tubular column PHD thesis Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2011
[15] Liu L, Lu Y. Axial bearing capacity of short FRP confined concrete-filled steel tub-
ular columns. J Wuhan Univ Technol-Mater Sci Ed 2010;3(25):454–8.
[16] Lu Y, Li N, Li S. Behavior of FRP-confined concrete-filled steel tube columns.
Polymers 2014;6:1333–49.
[17] Che Y, Wang QL, Shao YB. Compressive performances of the concrete filled circular
CFRP-steel tube (C-CFRP-CFST). Adv Steel Construct 2012;8(4):331–58.
[18] Abdalla SH. Behavior of concrete filled steel tube (CFST) under different loading
conditions Master’s thesis American University of Sharjah, UAE; 2012.
[19] Alwash NA, AL-Salih HI. Experimental investigation on behavior of SCC filled steel
tubular stub columns strengthened with CFRP. Construct Eng (CE)
2013;1(2):37–51.
[20] Wei Y, Wu G, Li G. Performance of circular concrete-filled fiber-reinforced polymer-
steel composite tube columns under axial compression. J Reinf Plast Compos
2014;33(20):1911–28.
[21] Deng J, Zheng Y, Wang Y, Liu T, Li H. Study on axial compressive capacity of FRP-
confined concrete-filled steel tubes and its comparisons with other composite
structural systems. Int J Polym Sci 2017:1–7. Article ID 6272754.
[22] Na L, Yiyan L, Shan L, Lan L. Slenderness effects on concrete-filled steel tube col-
umns confined with CFRP. J Constr Steel Res 2018;143:110–8.
[23] Shen Q, Wang J, Wang J, Ding Z. Axial compressive performance of circular CFST
columns partially wrapped by carbon FRP. J Constr Steel Res 2019;155:90–106.
[24] Wang J, Shen Q, Wang F, Wang W. Experimental and analytical studies on CFRP
strengthened circular thin walled CFST stub columns under eccentric compression.
Thin-Walled Struct 2018;127:102–19.
[25] Prabhu GG, Sundarraja MC. Behaviour of concrete filled steel tubular (CFST) short
columns externally reinforced using CFRP strips composite. Construct Build Mater
2013;47:1362–71.
[26] Volety IV. Modeling of fiber reinforced polymer confined concrete cylinders
Master’s thesis Louisiana: State University Agricultural and Mechanical College;
2006
[27] Chen Y, Wang K, He K, Wei J, Wan J. Compressive behavior of CFRP-confined post
heated square CFST stub columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2018;127:434–45.
[28] Parvin A, Jamwal AS. Effects of wrap thickness and ply configuration on composite-
confined concrete cylinders. Compos Struct 2005;67:437–42.
[29] Park JW, Hong YK, Hong GS, Kim JH, Choi SM. Design formulas of concrete filled
circular steel tubes reinforced by carbon fiber reinforced plastic sheets. The twelfth
East Asia-Pacific conference on structural engineering and construction, procedia
engineering. 2011. p. 2916–22.
[30] Han LH, Yao GH, Zhao XL. Behavior and calculation on concrete-filled steel CHS
(Circular Hollow Section) beam-columns. Steel Compos Struct 2004;3(4):169–88.
[31] Yu Q. Behaviors of FRP-confined concrete columns. Dissertation for the Master
Degree in Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology; 2002 [in Chinese].
[32] Mander JB, Priestley JN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined con-
crete. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1988;114(8):1804–26.
[33] Richart FE, Brandzaeg A, Brown RL. A study of the failure of concrete under
combined compressive stresses. Illinois, USA: University of Illinois, Engineering
Experimental Station; 1928.
[34] Lam L, Teng G. Strength models for fiber-reinforced plastic-confined concrete. J
Struct Eng, ASCE 2002;128(5):612–23.
[35] Wang QL, Wang JY, Zhang YD. Mechanical property analysis on axially compressed
concrete filled circular CFRP-steel tube stub columns. Eng Mech 2006;23(8):102–4.
[in Chinese].
[36] Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings. EN 1992-1-1 European Committee for Standardization. British Standards
Institution; 2004.
[37] Ersoy U, Özcebe G, Tankut T. Reinforced concrete. Ankara, Turkey: METU Press;
2010.
[38] Midness S, Young JF, Darwin D. Concrete. 2nd ed. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall;
2003.
[39] FIB. Punching of structural concrete slabs. Fib Bulletin 12, Technical report,
Lausanne, Switzerland; 2001.
[40] Haupt RL, Haupt SE. Practical genetic algorithms. 2nd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
[41] Koza JR. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of
natural selection. London: MIT Press; 1992.
[42] Ferreira C. Gene expression programming in problem solving. In: 6th Online World
Conference on Soft Computing in Industrial Applications; 2001 (tutorial).
[43] Koza JR. Survey of genetic algorithms and genetic programming. In: Wescon 95: E2.
Neural-fuzzy technologies and its applications IEEE, San Francisco; 1995. p.
589–94.
[44] Ferreira C. Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving
problems. Complex Syst 2001;13(2):87–129.
[45] Yang Y, Li X, Gao L, Shao X. A new approach for predicting and collaborative
evaluating the cutting force in face milling based on gene expression programming.

430
E.M. Güneyisi and A.I. Nour
J Network Comput Appl 2013;36:1540–50.
[46] Lino A, Rocha Á, Sizo A. A proposal for automatic evaluation by symbolic regression
in virtual learning environments. Adv Intell Syst Comput 2016;444:855–65.
[47] Ferreira C. Gene expression programming: mathematical modeling by an artificial
intelligence. 2nd ed. Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2006.
431
Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 417–431
[48] GeneXproTools 5.0, 2018, < http://www.gepsoft.com/ > .
[49] Ferreira C. Function finding and the creation of numerical constants in gene ex-
pression programming. 7th Online world conference on soft computing in industrial
applications. 2002.