Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-015-0713-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation and modeling of ultimate bond strength
of corroded reinforcement in reinforced concrete elements
Esra Mete Güneyisi . Kasım Mermerdaş .
Ayşegül Gültekin
Received: 4 June 2014 / Accepted: 14 September 2015
 RILEM 2015
Abstract Bond deterioration between the reinforce-
ment and surrounding concrete is one of the crucial
reasons for the structural degradation in the steel–
concrete composite structures. The assessment of
bond deterioration due to corrosion is of prime
importance on this issue. This study aims to present
the derivation of analytical formulation of ultimate
bond strength su at the corroded reinforcement–
concrete interface for the reinforced concrete (RC)
elements subjected to various levels of corrosion. The
modeling technique dealt in this work is gene-
expression programming and artificial neural network.
The data used for the development of the models are
thoroughly selected from the available experimental
studies reported in the technical literature. A total of
218 experimental data samples were arranged to
obtain training and testing data sets. The critical
predictive factors were compressive strength of con-
crete, concrete cover, steel type, diameter of the steel
bar, bond length, and corrosion level. The perfor-
mances of the proposed empirical models were also
evaluated statistically. The results indicated that the
soft-computing based models had a satisfactory
E. M. Güneyisi (&)  A. Gültekin
Department of Civil Engineering, Gaziantep University,
27310 Gaziantep, Turkey
e-mail: eguneyisi@gantep.edu.tr
K. Mermerdaş
Department of Civil Engineering, Hasan Kalyoncu
University, Gaziantep, Turkey
performance to predict the ultimate bond strength of
corroded steel bars in RC elements.
Keywords Analytical modeling  Bond strength 
Corrosion  Experimental database  Reinforced
concrete
1 Introduction
One of the most detrimental durability problems
occurred in reinforced concrete (RC) structure is
reinforcement corrosion. In this regard, bond deteri-
oration between reinforcement and concrete due to
corrosion has a paramount importance. In the litera-
ture, there have been extensive experimental studies
dealing with the bond behavior of corroded reinforce-
ment in concrete [1–12]. In the design of RC
structures, it is assumed that there is a proper bond
between reinforcement and concrete so that the failure
of concrete is expected to occur after the yielding of
steel when the ultimate capacity is reached [13].
However, when the reinforcement corrodes, because
of the crack formation around steel bar, the adherence
between reinforcement and concrete weakens. The
cross section of the steel bar also decreases due to
corrosion, and hence causing a reduction in its tensile
strength capacity. Furthermore, the pressure exerted to
the surrounding concrete results in crack formations,
and the propagation of these cracks accelerates the
degradation of RC structural elements [6, 12].

Corrosion mechanism covers wide variety of fac-
tors such as corroding environment, type of steel bar,
concentration of corroding agent, the quality of
concrete, cover thickness, etc. [8, 14–17]. In particu-
lar, port and marine structures are the most risky
structures in terms of corrosion damage. Active
corrosion occurs due to the decrease in pH of pore
solution in concrete, which is usually associated with
carbonation phenomenon and/or due to the penetration
of chloride ions, which come from the environments.
The studies have shown that to some extent of
corrosion level, there is a slight increase in the bond
strength of reinforcement and concrete as a result of
pressure induced by uncracked concrete cover [1, 6].
However, following the crack initiation the bond
strength starts to decrease as the level of corrosion
increases.
Most of the durability related studies focus on
protecting the RC structural elements against corro-
sion or rehabilitation of the structure experienced
corrosion. The studies dealing with experimental
monitoring of bond behavior of corroded reinforce-
ment mostly lacks the analytical modeling. However,
in the literature, there are some researches in which
effect of corrosion on bond property has been evalu-
ated and modeled by using theoretical or finite element
frameworks [7, 8, 18, 19]. Having a deep look to the
available literature, it can be found out that there has
not yet been a practical and more generalized model to
estimate the bond strength of corroded reinforcement
in RC members.
In the recent years, soft-computing techniques have
been successfully utilized to predict some key prop-
erties of concrete and/or reinforced concrete [20–35].
For example, Mermerdaş et al. [27] used gene
expression programming to propose a prediction
model for drying shrinkage of concrete. In the study
of Duan et al. [28], the applicability of artificial neural
networks (NNs) to predict the compressive strength of
recycled aggregate concrete was presented. Approx-
imately, 146 test data, obtained from the published
literature was used to construct the NN model. In the
literature, the shear capacity of RC deep beams [29,
30], corrosion current density of RC slab [31], pull-off
adhesion of concrete floor layers [32], and load
carrying capacity of adhesive anchor in concrete
block [33] were also examined by means of soft-
computing based methods. Regarding the prediction
of the bond at steel–concrete interface by soft-
Materials and Structures
computing, there were very limited studies in the
literature. These studies mainly focused on predicting
the bond strength of uncorroded steel bars and
concrete [34, 35]. For instance, Dahou et al. [34] used
an artificial neural network for modeling the bond
between conventional ribbed steel bars and concrete.
The NN models were implemented using an experi-
mental database of 112 pull-out test results. Golaf-
shani et al. [35] also studied the estimation of bond
strength of spliced steel bars in concrete using artificial
neural network and fuzzy logic. They used the
experimental data of 179 different splice beam tests.
However, nowadays, at the Authors’ knowledge, there
has not yet been developed a scientific study reporting
soft-computing based estimation models for predict-
ing the bond properties between concrete and corroded
reinforcing bars.
In the current study, two different analytical
models generated from gene expression program-
ming (GEP) and artificial neural networks (NNs)
were presented for predicting the ultimate bond
strength (su) of the reinforced concrete subjected to
accelerated corrosion test. For this, a wide range of
experimental database (covering 218 test results)
obtained from available studies in the technical
literature has been taken into account. The data set
was used to train and test the proposed models. The
independent variables used for the development of
the prediction models were compressive strength of
concrete, concrete cover, type of reinforcement
(plain or deformed), diameter of the steel bar, bond
length, and corrosion level. The performance of the
NN and GEP based models in predicting the bond
between corroded reinforcement and concrete was
evaluated and compared statistically.
2 Description of the experimental data set
The data used in this study were compiled from
available experimental studies presented in the liter-
ature [1–8]. Table 1 shows the summary of the data
source in which the number of the data samples
obtained from the studies and the other details are
given. Moreover, the further details of each data
sample are presented in Table 2.
The ultimate bond strength between reinforcement
and concrete is calculated by the following analytical
relation (Eq. 1).
Materials and Structures

Table 1 Summary of the experimental database

No. Tested by Test no. Steel type Test specimen Test set-up Range of bond strength (MPa)

1 Almusallam et al. [1] 18 Deformed Prism Pull-out 2.4–18.6

2 Auyeung et al. [2] 11 Deformed Prism Pull-out 1.4–8.4
3 Shima [3] 4 Deformed Prism Pull-out 2.3–7.00
4 Zhao and Jin [4] 28 Deformed ? Plain Cube Pull-out 1.6–11.4
5 Fang et al. [5] 20 Deformed ? Plain Prism Pull-out 4.0–21.4
6 Horrigmoe et al. [6] 34 Deformed Cylinder Pull-out 3.9–13.6
7 Chung et al. [7] 21 Plain Prism Pull-out 14.0–20.6
8 Yalciner et al. [8] 90 Deformed Cube Pull-out 1.3–31.7

Table 2 Experimental database used for derivation of the proposed models

Ref no. No. Code of Compressive Concrete Steel Diameter of Bond Corrosion Max. bond
specimens strength, fc (MPa) cover, type, steel bar, / length, level, CL strength, su
c (mm) STa (mm) l (mm) (%) (MPa)

Almusallam 1 1 30 fc;U75 9 150 64 2 12 102 0 15.86

et al. [1] 2 2 30 64 2 12 102 2 16.25
3 3 30 64 2 12 102 2.5 16.38
4 4 30 64 2 12 102 2.6 17.81
5 5 30 64 2 12 102 4 18.59
6 6 30 64 2 12 102 5 17.03
7 7 30 64 2 12 102 5.5 16.38
8 8 30 64 2 12 102 6.5 13.52
9 9 30 64 2 12 102 7 10.79
10 10 30 64 2 12 102 8 4.94
11 11 30 64 2 12 102 8.5 4.68
12 12 30 64 2 12 102 11.5 3.38
13 13 30 64 2 12 102 15.5 3.12
14 14 30 64 2 12 102 20.5 2.73
15 15 30 64 2 12 102 32.5 2.68
16 16 30 64 2 12 102 48 2.63
17 17 30 64 2 12 102 60.2 2.50
18 18 30 64 2 12 102 80 2.44
Auyeung 19 1 28 fc;U100 9 200 79.4 2 19 177.8 0 6.32
et al. [2] 20 2 28 79.4 2 19 178.8 0 5.79
21 3 28 79.4 2 19 179.8 0.72 7.67
22 4 28 79.4 2 19 180.8 0.72 7.13
23 5 28 79.4 2 19 181.8 0.98 8.41
24 6 28 79.4 2 19 182.8 1.23 4.91
25 7 28 79.4 2 19 183.8 1.44 3.10
26 8 28 79.4 2 19 184.8 1.7 3.79
27 9 28 79.4 2 19 185.8 2.21 3.70
28 10 28 79.4 2 19 186.8 2.88 2.09
29 11 28 79.4 2 19 187.8 5.19 1.41
 Materials and Structures

Table 2 continued
Ref no. No. Code of Compressive Concrete Steel Diameter of Bond Corrosion Max. bond
specimens strength, fc (MPa) cover, type, steel bar, / length, level, CL strength, su
c (mm) STa (mm) l (mm) (%) (MPa)

Shima [3] 30 Series I-1 27.2 fc;U100 9 200 40 2 22.3 500 0 6.96
31 Series I-2 28.4 40 2 22.3 500 2.5 2.89
32 Series I-3 24.4 40 2 22.3 500 11.9 2.27
33 Series I-4 27.7 40 2 22.3 500 28.9 2.38
Zhao and Jin 34 P1 22.13 fc;cube,150 44 1 12 80 0.27 2.65
[4] 35 P2 22.13 44 1 12 80 0.29 3.23
36 P3 22.13 44 1 12 80 0.92 5.79
37 P4 22.13 44 1 12 80 1.13 5.84
38 P5 22.13 44 1 12 80 0.78 7.41
39 P6 22.13 44 1 12 80 1.47 8.63
40 P7 22.13 44 1 12 80 1.85 7.30
41 P8 22.13 44 1 12 80 1.5 7.96
42 P9 22.13 44 1 12 80 1.99 9.29
43 P10 22.13 44 1 12 80 1.04 10.26
44 P11 22.13 44 1 12 80 2.75 5.97
45 P12 22.13 44 1 12 80 2.43 4.84
46 P13 22.13 44 1 12 80 4.77 3.75
47 P14 22.13 44 1 12 80 5.01 1.63
48 D1 22.13 44 2 12 80 0.12 8.92
49 D2 22.13 44 2 12 80 0.16 9.49
50 D3 22.13 44 2 12 80 0.24 7.37
51 D4 22.13 44 2 12 80 0.32 8.50
52 D5 22.13 44 2 12 80 0.43 8.39
53 D6 22.13 44 2 12 80 0.62 10.62
54 D7 22.13 44 2 12 80 0.81 11.35
55 D8 22.13 44 2 12 80 1.4 9.99
56 D9 22.13 44 2 12 80 2.54 9.95
57 D10 22.13 44 2 12 80 3.75 8.59
58 D11 22.13 44 2 12 80 4.45 8.70
59 D12 22.13 44 2 12 80 5.68 5.97
60 D13 22.13 44 2 12 80 7.5 4.64
61 D14 22.13 44 2 12 80 9.72 1.66
Fang et al. [5] 62 D1 52.1 fc;cube,100 60 2 20 80 0 15.40
63 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 0 21.20
64 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 0 21.40
65 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 0.1 15.80
66 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 2 12.00
67 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 2.2 13.00
68 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 3.5 11.40
69 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 4.4 12.00
70 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 5.8 6.20
71 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 6.8 8.50
72 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 9 7.00
Materials and Structures

Table 2 continued
Ref no. No. Code of Compressive Concrete Steel Diameter of Bond Corrosion Max. bond
specimens strength, fc (MPa) cover, type, steel bar, / length, level, CL strength, su
c (mm) STa (mm) l (mm) (%) (MPa)

73 D1 52.1 60 2 20 80 9 7.50
74 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 0 4.00
75 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 0 6.20
76 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 0.7 10.70
77 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 1.2 14.20
78 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 3.25 7.60
79 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 3.5 10.70
80 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 4.1 7.30
81 S1 52.1 60 1 20 80 6.8 8.00
Horrigmoe 82 ref1 30 fc;U100 9 200 147.5 2 25 160 0 9.84
et al. [6] 83 ref2 30 147.5 2 25 160 0 10.48
84 ref3 30 147.5 2 25 160 0 11.91
85 1 30 147.5 2 25 160 5.62 7.68
86 2 30 147.5 2 25 160 5.84 8.09
87 3 30 147.5 2 25 160 3.4 9.68
88 4 30 147.5 2 25 160 3.05 7.67
89 5 30 147.5 2 25 160 5.58 5.17
90 6 30 147.5 2 25 160 5.19 7.17
91 7 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.15 6.10
92 8 30 147.5 2 25 160 5.19 9.03
93 9 30 147.5 2 25 160 6.82 6.48
94 ref1 30 147.5 2 25 160 0 9.13
95 ref2 30 147.5 2 25 160 0 10.00
96 U23 30 147.5 2 25 160 3.2 11.20
97 U26 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.69 7.89
98 U27 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.35 8.08
99 U28 30 147.5 2 25 160 3.88 11.32
100 U29 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.45 9.04
101 U30 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.39 7.64
102 U31 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.52 7.28
103 ref1 30 147.5 2 25 160 0 10.43
104 ref2 30 147.5 2 25 160 0 10.92
105 ref3 30 147.5 2 25 160 0 9.69
106 U3 30 147.5 2 25 160 2.09 8.70
107 U4 30 147.5 2 25 160 1.78 13.63
108 U5 30 147.5 2 25 160 3.09 4.93
109 U6 30 147.5 2 25 160 1.31 10.89
110 U7 30 147.5 2 25 160 2.22 5.91
111 U9 30 147.5 2 25 160 3.16 13.02
112 U10 30 147.5 2 25 160 0.79 9.36
113 U12 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.1 7.93
114 U13 30 147.5 2 25 160 5.33 3.89
115 U20 30 147.5 2 25 160 4.13 8.70
 Materials and Structures

Table 2 continued
Ref no. No. Code of Compressive Concrete Steel Diameter of Bond Corrosion Max. bond
specimens strength, fc (MPa) cover, type, steel bar, / length, level, CL strength, su
c (mm) STa (mm) l (mm) (%) (MPa)

Chung et al. 116 S13-0-I 28.3 fc;U100 9 200 68.5 1 13 37.1 0 14.70
[7] 117 S13-0-II 28.3 68.5 1 13 36.6 0 17.00
118 S13-0-III 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.9 0 14.00
119 A13-2-0.1 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.2 0.1 20.10
120 A13-2-0.5 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.1 0.5 17.40
121 A13-2-1.0 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.4 1 20.00
122b A13-3-1.1a 28.3 68.5 1 13 39.1 2.5 20.60
123 A13-3-1.2 28.3 68.5 1 13 36.7 1.2 16.20
124 A13-3-1.4 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.1 1.4 17.90
125 A13-4-0.9 28.3 68.5 1 13 38 0.9 16.40
126b A13-4-2.5a 28.3 68.5 1 13 39.1 2.5 20.60
127b A13-4-0.2a 28.3 68.5 1 13 37 0.2 15.90
128 A13-5-0.8 28.3 68.5 1 13 36.7 0.8 18.50
129 A13-5-1.9 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.1 1.9 20.30
b
130 A13-5-0.9a 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.1 0.9 14.10
131b A13-7-0.5a 28.3 68.5 1 13 36.5 0.5 16.70
132b A13-7-1.4a 28.3 68.5 1 13 37 1.4 19.00
133 A13-7-2.2 28.3 68.5 1 13 37.8 2.2 14.40
134b A13-10-0.6a 28.3 68.5 1 13 36.1 0.6 16.10
b
135 A13-10-0.7a 28.3 68.5 1 13 35.9 0.7 15.40
136 A13-10-1.9 28.3 68.5 1 13 36.8 1.9 15.90
Yalciner et al. 137 R1SP1 23 fc;cube,150 15 2 14 50 0 9.10
[8] 138 R1SP2 23 15 2 14 50 0 9.40
139 R1SP3 23 15 2 14 50 0 9.20
140 R2SP1 23 30 2 14 50 0 14.00
141 R2SP2 23 30 2 14 50 0 12.30
142 R2SP3 23 30 2 14 50 0 13.50
143 R3SP1 23 45 2 14 50 0 12.10
144 R3SP2 23 45 2 14 50 0 17.30
145 R3SP3 23 45 2 14 50 0 15.00
146 R4SP1 23 15 2 14 50 8.9 3.70
147 R4SP2 23 15 2 14 50 4.1 13.00
148 R4SP3 23 15 2 14 50 2.47 11.20
149 R4SP4 23 15 2 14 50 2.72 11.70
150 R4SP5 23 15 2 14 50 4.32 12.20
151 R4SP6 23 15 2 14 50 4.33 12.20
152 R4SP7 23 15 2 14 50 4.09 13.00
153 R4SP8 23 15 2 14 50 6.51 3.20
154 R4SP9 23 15 2 14 50 14.52 2.10
155 R5SP1 23 30 2 14 50 1.37 18.00
156 R5SP2 23 30 2 14 50 3.45 9.60
157 R5SP3 23 30 2 14 50 5.56 3.30
158 R5SP4 23 30 2 14 50 1.4 17.90
Materials and Structures

Table 2 continued
Ref no. No. Code of Compressive Concrete Steel Diameter of Bond Corrosion Max. bond
specimens strength, fc cover, type, steel bar, / length, level, CL strength, su
(MPa) c (mm) STa (mm) l (mm) (%) (MPa)

159 R5SP5 23 30 2 14 50 1.69 16.90

160 R5SP6 23 30 2 14 50 1.6 17.00
161 R5SP7 23 30 2 14 50 3.57 8.90
162 R5SP8 23 30 2 14 50 5.36 3.70
163 R5SP9 23 30 2 14 50 16.65 2.10
164 R6SP1 23 45 2 14 50 0.69 19.10
165 R6SP2 23 45 2 14 50 1.69 13.40
166 R6SP3 23 45 2 14 50 2.66 12.40
167 R6SP4 23 45 2 14 50 0.68 17.90
168 R6SP5 23 45 2 14 50 0.66 18.90
169 R6SP6 23 45 2 14 50 0.84 18.30
170 R6SP7 23 45 2 14 50 0.88 18.20
171 R6SP8 23 45 2 14 50 1.6 13.70
172 R6SP9 23 45 2 14 50 3.81 1.30
173 R7SP1 23 15 2 14 50 18.75 4.30
174 R7SP2 23 15 2 14 50 8.9 3.00
175 R7SP3 23 15 2 14 50 14.66 2.00
176 R8SP1 23 30 2 14 50 6.87 6.50
177 R8SP2 23 30 2 14 50 17.33 1.80
178 R8SP3 23 30 2 14 50 6.4 5.50
179 R9SP1 23 45 2 14 50 6.27 3.20
180 R9SP2 23 45 2 14 50 0.68 18.00
181 R9SP3 23 45 2 14 50 3.81 1.30
182 R10SP1 51 15 2 14 50 0 19.60
183 R10SP2 51 15 2 14 50 0 14.30
184 R10SP3 51 15 2 14 50 0 20.00
185 R11SP1 51 30 2 14 50 0 20.90
186 R11SP2 51 30 2 14 50 0 21.70
187 R11SP3 51 30 2 14 50 0 21.00
188 R12SP1 51 45 2 14 50 0 21.20
189 R12SP2 51 45 2 14 50 0 27.40
190 R12SP3 51 45 2 14 50 0 27.80
191 R13SP1 51 15 2 14 50 1.33 18.50
192 R13SP2 51 15 2 14 50 7.48 3.50
193 R13SP3 51 15 2 14 50 4.47 6.30
194 R13SP4 51 15 2 14 50 0.77 22.30
195 R13SP5 51 15 2 14 50 0.8 22.40
196 R13SP6 51 15 2 14 50 0.9 21.70
197 R13SP7 51 15 2 14 50 0.94 21.50
198 R13SP8 51 15 2 14 50 7.56 3.50
199 R13SP9 51 15 2 14 50 3.3 7.50
200 R14SP1 51 30 2 14 50 0 20.40
201 R14SP2 51 30 2 14 50 5.14 6.20
 Materials and Structures

Table 2 continued
Ref no. No. Code of Compressive Concrete Steel Diameter of Bond Corrosion Max. bond
specimens strength, fc cover, type, steel bar, / length, level, CL strength, su
(MPa) c (mm) STa (mm) l (mm) (%) (MPa)

202 R14SP3 51 30 2 14 50 5.46 2.40

203 R14SP4 51 30 2 14 50 0.65 23.80
204 R14SP5 51 30 2 14 50 0.68 23.90
205 R14SP6 51 30 2 14 50 0.77 23.50
206 R14SP7 51 30 2 14 50 0.77 23.40
207 R14SP8 51 30 2 14 50 1.7 14.00
208 R14SP9 51 30 2 14 50 4.45 4.20
209 R15SP1 51 45 2 14 50 0 28.30
210 R15SP2 51 45 2 14 50 2.69 7.60
211 R15SP3 51 45 2 14 50 0.34 26.20
212 R15SP4 51 45 2 14 50 0.31 31.60
213 R15SP5 51 45 2 14 50 0.4 31.00
214 R15SP6 51 45 2 14 50 0.41 30.80
215 R15SP7 51 45 2 14 50 4.73 3.00
216 R15SP8 51 45 2 14 50 4.38 3.40
217 R15SP9 51 45 2 14 50 4.17 3.90
218 R16SP1 51 15 2 14 50 8.95 3.00
219 R16SP2 51 15 2 14 50 6.9 8.00
220 R16SP3 51 15 2 14 50 3.41 6.80
221 R17SP1 51 30 2 14 50 9.9 5.90
222 R17SP2 51 30 2 14 50 4.86 1.70
223 R17SP3 51 30 2 14 50 1.72 13.80
224 R18SP1 51 45 2 14 50 0.34 26.90
225 R18SP2 51 45 2 14 50 0.34 31.70
226 R18SP3 51 45 2 14 50 3.08 6.10
a
Dummy variables are 1 for plain steel and 2 for deformed steel
b
Excluded from data set due to loading eccentricity problems in cutting steel bars, etc. [7]

Pmax
su ¼ ; ð1Þ
p/l
where Pmax is the ultimate load (N) in pull-out test, / is
the diameter of the bar (mm), and l is the bond length
(mm). Ersoy et al. [13] state that even though the stress
distribution is not uniform at early stages of the
loading, it becomes almost uniform at ultimate limit
state. Therefore, the expression of the ultimate bond
strength in Eq. 1. is possible to indicate the average
bond stress between the concrete and reinforcement.
Moreover, although the calculation of su in Eq. 1.
from the bond strength test provides a practical
approach to find out the bond strength between the
concrete and reinforcement, it does not represent the
real condition because of the ignorance of the tension
cracks, local compression caused by support reaction,
restraining the splitting of the specimen due to the
friction at the base, assuming no shear, and ignorance
of the distance to the adjacent bars.
As seen from Table 2, a total of six critical
parameters were utilized. The input variables com-
prised of mainly pull-out test parameters such as
diameter of the bar (/), bond length (l), steel type
(ST), concrete cover (c), compressive strength of
concrete (fc), and corrosion level (CL) which can be
defined as measured reduction in mass of the rein-
forcement as a result of rust formation. These
Materials and Structures
predictive parameters were used to develop the models
for estimation of ultimate bond strength between
corroded reinforcement and concrete. In Table 2, the
ranges of each variable can be clearly observed. For
example, diameter of the steel bar, bond length,
concrete cover, and corrosion level were in the range
of 12–25, 36–500, 15–148 mm, and 0–80 %, respec-
tively. As reinforcement, either plain or deformed bars
were utilized in the pull-out test. The compressive
strength (fc) of concretes used in the databases was
generally measured from 150 9 150 9 150 mm cube
specimens. However, for some data samples taken
from [1–3, 5–7], the reported compressive strength
data were obtained from the samples having different
geometries. Therefore, those fc values were converted
to that of 150 9 150 9 150 mm cube specimens by
means of Table 3, proposed by Eurocode 2 [36] and
some factors given in the studies [13, 37, 38].
In this research, as given in Table 2, the data
sources cover thoroughly selected 226 sets of data
obtained from the studies in the literature [1–8].
However, eight of them presented in the study of
Chung et al. [7] were excluded from the data set due to
the experimental error pointed out in their study.
Therefore, a total of 218 data samples were used for
Table 3 Conversion relationship between fc;cube,150 and fc;cylinder,150 based on Eurocode 2 [36]
fc;U150 9 300 (MPa) 12 16 20 25 30
fc;cube,150 (MPa) 15 20 25 30 37
Reinforcement
RC test
specimen
Stainless steel
plate
Fig. 1 Schematic representation of typical electrochemical system used for corrosion induction
the derivation of NN and GEP models. In all studies
used in the preparation of the database, corrosion
induction was achieved by means of similar electro-
chemical systems. A schematic representation of
typical accelerated corrosion set-up is shown in
Fig. 1. In order to induce different corrosion levels
on the reinforcement, the potentiometers were used to
control the current intensity in some of the studies
while the others benefited from the current-induced
accelerated corrosion set-up in order to shorten the
period of test. All of the systems had cathode (counter
electrode) and anode (reinforcement) connections for
the corrosion process. All test specimens were
immersed in NaCl solution. To avoid the corrosion
of exposed bar during the test, a coating was utilized to
the reinforcing bar and top surface of the concrete.
Although the electrochemical systems sometimes
have different components such as different types of
counter electrode, the degree of corrosion was mea-
sured as gravimetric loss in weight of the reinforcing
bars. In all studies, the designed (theoretical) mass loss
of the reinforcing bars owing to corrosion was
estimated based on Faraday’s law. Then, the actual
(experimental) corrosion level or percentage mass loss
of the sample was calculated. After inducing
35 40 45 50 55 60 70 80 90
45 50 55 60 67 75 85 95 105
Electric wire
NaCl
solution - +
Container
DC power supply

Fig. 2 Typical loading configurations for pull-out test
specimens
corrosion, the bond strength between corroded steel
(with specified corrosion level) and concrete was
determined through the pull-out test (Fig. 2). In this
study, to model the bond property, the database was
arbitrarily separated into two parts, namely training
and testing sub-databases. Among these experimental
data, one fourth of the database was used as testing (55
sets) while the others were utilized as training database
(163 sets). The training database was employed for the
development of the prediction models while the test
database was used to observe the repeatability and
robustness of the proposed NN and GEP models.
3 Overview of soft-computing techniques
Soft-computing was defined as a collection of tech-
niques that are intended to exploit the tolerance for
imprecision and uncertainty to achieve tractability,
robustness, and low solution cost [39]. Fuzzy logic,
neurocomputing, and probabilistic reasoning are the
main components of soft-computing. It has been
utilized in wide variety of fields of applications such
as engineering problems, financial estimations, diag-
nostic tool in medicine, etc. Soft-computing tech-
niques which were derived from artificial intelligence
philosophy simulate the human mind. The most
Materials and Structures
popular techniques of soft-computing are the fuzzy
logic, genetic algorithm, genetic programming, and
neural network.
3.1 Gene expression programming (GEP)
Genetic programming (GP), proposed by Koza [40] is
essentially an application of genetic algorithms to
computer programs. Gene expression programming
(GEP) was introduced by Ferreira [41] and it can be
considered as a natural development of genetic algo-
rithms and genetic programming. The GEP produces
computer programs of different sizes and shapes
encoded in linear chromosomes of fixed-length. The
GEP algorithm begins with the random generation of
the fixed-length chromosomes of each individual for
the initial population. Then, the chromosomes are
expressed and the fitness of each individual is evalu-
ated based on the quality of the solution it represents.
The important characteristic of the GEP is that it
makes it possible to infer exactly the phenotype given
the sequence of a gene, and vice versa which is termed
as Karva language. In the present study, the GeneX-
proTools.5.0 software [42] was used for the derivation
of the GEP based mathematical model.
The GEP parameters used for the derivation of the
model are presented in Table 4. The parameters
presented in this table were obtained from a prelim-
inary study to maximize the correlation and minimize
the error.
3.2 Neural network (NN)
Neural network (NN) is a functional simulation of the
biological neural structures of the central nervous
system [43–46]. It can exhibit a number characteristic
of human brain such as learn from experience and
generalize from previous cases to new problems. In
neural networks (NNs), there are many cells and
connections between inputs and outputs. These con-
nections between neurons get a transmission value as
for the relation and this is called weight. The weights
could be renewed for every new data. After realizing
the weights, a present database teaching system is
easily updated with the data to be obtained later [47,
48]. The NNs are systems composed of many simple
processing elements operating in parallel whose
functions are determined primarily by the pattern of
connectivity. These systems are capable of high level
Materials and Structures

Table 4 GEP parameters used in the model X

n
Uk ¼ wj;k Ij þ Biask ð2Þ
P1 Function set ?, -, *,/, H, ^, ln, exp j¼1
P2 Number of generation 118,578
2 3
P3 Choromosomes 30 w11 w12    w1n 2 3
6 7 I1
P4 Head size 8 6 w21   7
6 7 6I 7
P5 Linking function Addition 6  7 6 27
6 7 6 7
P6 Number of genes 6 6   7 6 7
6 7
P7 Mutation rate 0.044 Uk ¼ 6
6 
7
7 6 7
6 7 6 7
P8 Inversion rate 0.1 6    7 6 7
6 7 6 7
P9 One-point recombination rate 0.3 6  7 4 5
4   5
P10 Two-point recombination rate 0.3 In n1
wm1     wmn mn
P11 Gene recombination rate 0.1
2 3 2 3
P12 Gene transposition rate 0.1 Bias1 U1
6 Bias 7 6U 7
6 2 7 6 27
6 7 6 7
6  7 6  7
functions, such as adaptation or learning, and lower 6 7 6 7
þ6 7 ¼6 7 : ð3Þ
6  7 6  7
level functions such as data pre-processing for differ- 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 7
ent kinds of inputs. The NNs have been inspired both 4  5 4  5
by biological nervous systems and mathematical Biasm Um
m1 m1
theories of learning, information processing, and
control [43]. Since nftool uses the normalized values in the range
In this study, a neural network fitting tool (nftool) of [-1, 1], the input parameters were normalized by
provided as a soft-computing tool in MatlabV.R2012a means of Eq. 3 so as to get the prediction results after
[49] was utilized to perform neural network modeling. execution of the training process of the NN. Since the
In fitting problems, a neural network is used to map obtained results are also in the normalized form,
between a data set of numeric inputs and a set of considering the Eq. 4 and the normalization coeffi-
numeric targets. The nftool helps create and train a cients a and b for outputs, de-normalization process is
network, and evaluate its performance using mean applied and the results are monitored.
square error and regression analysis. bnormalized ¼ ab þ b; ð4Þ
A two-layer feed-forward network with sigmoid
hidden neurons and linear output neurons, can fit where b is the actual input parameter or output values
multi-dimensional mapping problems arbitrarily well, given in Table 2. bnormalized is the normalized value of
given consistent data and enough neurons in its hidden input parameters or outputs ranging between [-1,1]. a
layer. The network was trained with Levenberg– and b are normalization coefficients given in the
Marquardt back propagation algorithm. following equations (Eqs. 5 and 6). As a result of the
An artificial neuron consists of three main compo- normalization process, the lowest numeric value in an
nents, namely weights, bias, and an activation func- array becomes -1 while the highest becomes 1.
tion. Each neuron receives inputs I1, I2, …,In attached
2
with a weight wi which shows the connection strength a¼ ð5Þ
bmax  bmin
for that input for each connection. Each input is then
multiplied by the corresponding weight of the neuron bmax þ bmin
connection. A bias can be defined as a type of b¼ ; ð6Þ
bmax  bmin
connection weight with a constant nonzero value
added to the summation of weighted inputs, as given in where bmax and bmin are the maximum and minimum
Eq. 2. Generalized algebraic matrix operation is also actual values of either inputs or outputs, respectively.
given in Eq. 3. in order to clearly express the The normalization coefficients for both input and
mathematical operations in an artificial neuron. output variables are presented in Table 5.
 Materials and Structures

Table 5 Normalization coefficients for the database

Normalization Input and output variables
parameters
fc (MPa) c (mm) ST / (mm) l (mm) CL (%) Max. bond strength (MPa)

bmax 51.00 147.50 2.00 25.00 500.00 80.00 31.70

bmin 18.54 15.00 1.00 12.00 36.60 0.00 1.30
a 0.061622 0.015094 2 0.153846 0.004316 0.025 0.065789
b -2.14272 -1.22642 -3 -2.84615 -1.15796 -1 -1.08553

4 Proposed models
As can be seen from the sub-expressions of Eq. 7,
mainly trigonometric functions are included in the
The prediction model derived from the GEP is
proposed GEP model. The preliminary studies have
presented in Eq. 7. The GEP parameters used for
indicated that six sub-expressions with the GEP
derivation of the mathematical models are given in
parameters presented in Table 4 are the optimum
Table 4. As seen from Table 4, various mathematical
characteristics to obtain the best prediction model for
operations were employed in order to provide an
the available dataset.
accurate model. During training, the software some-
The models developed by the software in its native
times ignores some input variables due to negligible
language can be automatically parsed into visually
impact on the overall model. However, the GEP model
appealing expression trees, permitting a quicker and
presented in this study utilized each of the input
more complete comprehension of their mathemati-
parameters more than once. The most repeated input
cal/logical intricacies. Figure 3 demonstrates the
parameter (seven times) in the model is corrosion level
expression tree for the terms used in the formulation
(CL), while the least used ones are cover thickness (c)
of the GEP model. Some mathematical operations
and steel type (ST) each of which repeated twice. This
observed from expression tree were simplified in Eq 7.
may be attributed to the significance of the input
For example, in Eq. 7a, CL ? CL = 2CL was used in
parameters selected for modeling.
the model.
su ¼ s1 þ s2 þ s3 þ s4 þ s5 þ s6 ; ð7Þ The comparison between the experimental and
predicted bond strength is graphically illustrated in
where su is the ultimate bond strength between
Fig. 4. The correlation is evaluated by means of the
reinforcement and concrete. and the functions from
correlation coefficient ‘‘R’’ (Eq. 8), which describes
s1 to s6 are given below:
the fit of the model’s output variable approximation
  
2CL curve to the actual test data output variable curve.
s1 ¼ tan cos pffiffiffiffi þ fc ð7aÞ Higher R coefficient indicates a model with better
/
output approximation capability.
h  i P
s2 ¼ tan cos ðcos fc Þ5 þ CL þ l  0:603425 ðmi  m0 Þðpi  p0 Þ
R¼ P q ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð8Þ
P
ð7bÞ ðmi  m0 Þ2 ðpi  p0 Þ2
 pffiffiffi

s3 ¼ tan tan h fc  CL þ 3 c  / ð7cÞ where m0 and p0 are mean values of measured (mi) and
h  i predicted (pi) values, respectively.
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
s4 ¼ tan cos c  ST  / þ CL ð7dÞ By observing Fig. 4, it can be found out that the
trend in the variation of the training data is better than
33:59253  CL þ fc testing. The calculated correlation coefficients (R) are
s5 ¼ pffi ð7eÞ 0.880 and 0.816 for training and testing databases,
CL þ 3 l
respectively. This can be considered as a proof that
h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi i there is a satisfactory correlation between actual and
3
s6 ¼ tan cos CL  tanðc  ST  lÞ : ð7fÞ
predicted values. Furthermore, close values of the
Materials and Structures

Fig. 3 Expression tree (ET) for the GEP model [d0 compres- l, (mm), d5 corrosion level, CL, (%), c0, c1, and c2 constants
sive strength of concrete, fc, (MPa), d1 concrete cover, c, (mm), (c0 = 8.653382 for Sub-ET2, c1 = 14.906098 for sub-ET5,
d2 steel type, ST, (dummy variables; one for plain, two for c2 = -8.049957, for sub-ET2]
deformed bars) d3 diameter of the bar, /, (mm), d4 bond length,

Fig. 4 Bond strength prediction performance of the proposed GEP model for a training and b testing data sets
correlation coefficients may be considered as an
indicator for the robustness and proper fitness of the
proposed GEP model.
In the NN architecture, there are six nodes in the
input layer, corresponding to six prediction factors,
eight nodes in the hidden layer, and one in the output
layer corresponding to ultimate bond strength (su)
between reinforcement and concrete. Therefore, a 6-8-
1 NN architecture, as shown in Fig. 5, was obtained to
construct the NN based model. The NN model used in
this study can simply be expressed by Eq. 9. The
Materials and Structures
details of input and/or layer weights, activation
function (hyperbolic tangent), and biases are given
in Eqs. 11–13. It should be emphasized that all
numeric variables must be normalized to a range of
[-1, 1] before being introduced to the NN. Therefore,
one must enter the normalized values in the mathe-
matical operations given for the NN model. It should
also be taken into consideration that the final result
obtained from Eq. 10 is in the normalized form which
needs to be de-normalized according to Eq. 4 and
normalization coefficients given in Table 5.
Materials and Structures

Fig. 5 NN architecture for

the proposed model

X
m
su ¼ Biasoutput layer þ Wk f ðUk Þ; ð9Þ where su is ultimate bond strength between reinforce-
k¼1 ment and concrete in MPa, tanh(x) is the activation
function (hyperbolic tangent) given by the following
where Biasoutput layer = -1.8819 and f(x) (Hyperbolic
equation (Eq. 11), and U1, U2,…,U8 can be calculated
tangent) is the activation function.
by Eq. 12.
su ¼ 1:8819 þ 0:289 tan hðU1 Þ  1:4057 tan hðU2 Þ
2
 3:2693 tan hðU3 Þ  1:4999 tan hðU4 Þ tan hðxÞ ¼ 1 ð11Þ
1  e2x
þ 1:6869 tan hðU5 Þ þ 4:0483 tan hðU6 Þ
 2:1521 tan hðU7 Þ þ 5:5878 tan hðU8 Þ ð10Þ

2 3 2 3 2 3
0:85815 0:53388 1:5016 1:3732 0:21112 2:8563 2 3 1:4668 U1
6 1:8491 2:8584 1:9408 2:0485 1:7818 5:6954 7 f 6 4:1714 7 6 U2 7
6 7 c 6 7 6 7
6 1:0007 0:97422 2:0783 7 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 0:9666 0:25319 0:75765 7 6 c 7 6 1:75 7 6 U3 7
6 0:8269 1:5562 1:3367 1:5842 1:7004 0:2283 7 6 ST 7 6 0:071492 7
7 6 7 6 6 7
6 6 þ6 7 ¼ 6 U4 7:
6 0:22239 2:2716 0:76462 1:621 2:2544 7 7
2:495 7 6 / 7 6 0:29212 7 6 7 7
6 6 U5 7
6 0:25937 4:4558 5:9263 0:27564 0:88802 7
12:1297 7 4 l 5 6 7 6 7
6 6 4:8677 7 6 U6 7
4 3:1675 0:67803 3:4896 0:1128 2:428 9:4703 5 CL 4 6:8213 5 4 U7 5
0:085911 4:5935 1:6228 0:059915 1:1252 8:3213 5:7582 U8
ð12Þ

Fig. 6 Bond strength
prediction performance of
the proposed NN model for
a training and b testing data
sets
The comparison between prediction results
obtained from the NN model and the experimental
data obtained from the reported bond tests is shown in
Fig. 6. The correlation coefficients of 0.973 and 0.947
were achieved for training and testing databases,
respectively. The higher correlation coefficient
obtained for the NN model implies that that the
proposed NN model performs better and hence more
reliable than the GEP model.
Materials and Structures
5 Performance of the proposed models
In order to evaluate the prediction capabilities of the
proposed models, normalized results calculated by
dividing predicted results by actual ones were evalu-
ated and depicted in Fig. 7. Moreover, for further
comparison of the proposed models, the estimation
errors and the frequency of the corresponding data are
graphically demonstrated in Fig. 8.
Materials and Structures

Fig. 7 Comparison of the

performance of the proposed
models

Fig. 8 Error analysis of the

proposed NN and GEP
models

Considering the normalization of the predicted
data, the perfect estimation performance is 1.0 which
indicates that the predicted and observed values are
exactly same. Figure 7 clearly revealed that the closest
trend in variation of the normalized values around 1.0
was observed for the NN model. The normalized su
values ranged between 0.43 and 2.65 for the NN model
while larger range was observed for the proposed GEP
model (from 0.14 to 5.01). However, observing the
tendency of distribution of the normalized results
together with errors presented in Fig. 8, it can clearly
be seen that the largest fluctuations occur for the actual
bond strength of less than 5.0 MPa. Figures 7 and 8
show that the most of the data is above this value and
the estimation errors became relatively lower as the
bond strength values increases. The fluctuation of the
normalized data generally tend to be overestimation
for the GEP model while number of overestimation
and underestimation is almost same for the NN model.
The remarkable high errors occurred for the GEP
 Materials and Structures

model for the overestimated data. The number of analysis was also performed. The following statistical
overestimated and/or underestimated data obtained parameters were calculated using Eqs. 13–15 and
from the NN model is much less than those of the GEP presented in Table 6.
model. Considering the majority of the data of which
Mean absolute percent error: MAPE
su values are greater than 5.0 MPa, the average of the n
1X mi  pi
absolute error is about 10 and 20 % for the proposed ¼  100 ð13Þ
NN and GEP models, respectively. n i¼1 mi
The further assessment of the prediction capabili- Pn
ties of the proposed models were presented by i¼1 ðmi  pi Þ2
Mean square error: MSE ¼ ð14Þ
comparing the observed data from the study of Al- n
Musallam et al. [1] and the predicted values obtained
Root mean square error: RMSE
from the proposed models. Observed and the predicted sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
values are graphically shown in Fig. 9. The predicted i¼1 ðmi  pi Þ
values obtained for the proposed NN model almost ¼ ; ð15Þ
n
overlapped the experimental values while the GEP
model indicated underestimation performance. For the where m and p are values of the measured (mi) and
low corrosion levels, the bond strength had a tendency predicted (pi) values, respectively.
to increase before crack initiation. Critical observation Observing Table 6, it was pointed out that the
of Fig. 9 revealed that the proposed models, especially lowest errors were observed for the proposed NN
NN model was very sensitive to this case. model, especially for the training database. However,
For more detailed inspection of prediction capabil- the statistical errors calculated for the testing database
ities of the proposed NN and GEP models, statistical were also close to training database. The error analysis

Fig. 9 Comparison of the experimental results from Al-Musallam et al. [1] and predicted results from the proposed models

Table 6 Statistical Model MAPE MSE RMSE R

parameters of the proposed
models Train Test Train Test Train Test Train Test

GEP model 37.62 55.20 11.33 6.78 3.37 2.60 0.947 0.816
NN model 15.59 16.83 2.60 1.95 1.61 1.40 0.973 0.880
Materials and Structures
shown in both Fig. 8 and Table 5 prove that the
proposed NN model is better than the GEP model in
terms of accuracy and prediction performance.
The study presented herein focuses on the predic-
tion of bond strength between concrete and reinforce-
ment which is subject to various levels of corrosion.
However, in point of view of practitioners, the
applications of the models on structural elements
should be very useful. For example, the ultimate bond
strength is necessary for the calculation of anchorage
length (lb) as per Eq 16. [13]. The bar carries the force
exerted without pulling out if lb is adequate.
fyd
lb ¼ /; ð16Þ
4su
where fyd is design yield strength of reinforcing bar, su
is ultimate bond strength, and / is diameter of the bar.
As a future study, by considering fyd value and
estimated su value from the proposed empirical
models, an anchorage length of the structural members
can be calculated in more details.
6 Conclusions
In this research, the explicit formulation of ultimate
bond strength (su) of reinforced concrete (RC)
elements subjected to various corrosion levels is
presented. The proposed formulations are derived
from the most popular soft-computing techniques,
namely gene expression programming (GEP) and
artificial neural network (NN). In order to construct the
analytical models, available experimental data pre-
sented in the existing literature were compiled and
utilized. Based on the analysis of the results presented
in this research, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
• It is shown that soft-computing techniques may be
handful tools of derivation of empirical formula-
tions of ultimate bond strength (su) of RC speci-
mens exposed to the various corrosion levels. All
of the predicted values were valid and comparable
to the observed ones. Therefore, it can be con-
cluded that both of the proposed models can be
considered as useful models with satisfactory
prediction capability. Nevertheless, considering
the overall performance, the NN model provides
better than the GEP model in prediction of su.
• It was observed that for the low levels of exper-
imental su values up to 5 MPa, the average error
between the predicted and actual values were the
highest for both models when compared to the
other su intervals. According to the observed
correlations, the reliability of the proposed models
can be considered satisfactory for the actual su
values of more than 5 MPa. The correlation
coefficients for training database were found as
0.973 and 0.880 for the NN and GEP models,
respectively. Moreover, for testing databases,
correlation coefficients of 0.947 for the former
and 0.816 for the latter were achieved. Even
though the database for testing data set were not
used for training, high level of prediction was
obtained for both training and testing data sets
associated with low mean absolute percentage of
error and high coefficients of correlation. This can
be attributed to the strength of the robustness of the
developed model.
• Statistical analysis based on MAPE and MSE
values also proved that the proposed NN formu-
lations had comparatively lower errors than the
GEP model. Observing the overall tendency of the
estimation performance, it was found out that the
NN model might be considered as more preferable
prediction model.
• Since the GEP model receives the data as they are
i.e. without normalization, it can be thought to be
more user friendly than the NN model. However,
when the accuracy of the prediction possesses more
significance, then the utilization of the NN model
becomes more prominent. The solution may be the
computerization of the NN model by a simple
spreadsheet. In such a way, this minor disadvantage
due to complexity may be easily overcome.
References
1. Almussallam AA, Al-Gahtani AS, Aziz AA, Rasheeduz-
zafar (1996) Effect of reinforcement corrosion on bond
strength. Constr Build Mater 10(2):123–129
2. Auyeung Y, Balaguru P, Chung L (2000) Bond behaviour of
corroded reinforcement bars. ACI Mater J 97(2):214–220
3. Shima H (2002) Local bond stress-slip relationship of cor-
roded steel bars embedded in concrete. In: Proceeding of the
third international symposium on bond in concrete, Buda-
pest, pp 153–158. Nov 2002

4. Zhao Y, Jin W (2002) Test study on bond behavior of cor-
roded steel bars and concrete. J Zhejiang Univ (Engineering
Science Edition) 36(4):352–356 (in Chinese)
5. Fang C, Lundgren K, Chen L, Zhu C (2004) Corrosion
influence on bond in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Res
34(11):2159–2167
6. Horrigmoe G, Sæther I, Antonsen R, Arntsen B (2007)
Laboratory investigations of steel bar corrosion in concrete.
Background document SB3.10. Sustainable bridges:
assessment for future traffic demands and longer lives. A
project co-funded by the European Commission within the
Sixth Framework Programme 2007
7. Chung L, Kim JHJ, Yi ST (2008) Bond strength prediction
for reinforced concrete members with highly corroded
reinforcing bars. Cem Concr Compos 30(7):603–611
8. Yalçıner H, Eren Ö, Serhan Ş (2012) An experimental study
on the bond strength between reinforcement bars and con-
crete as a function of concrete cover, strength and corrosion
level. Cem Concr Res 42(5):643–655
9. Al-Sulaimani GJ, Kaleemullah M, Basanbul IA, Rashee-
duzzafar (1990) Influence of corrosion and cracking on
bond behaviour and strength of reinforced concrete mem-
bers. ACI Struct J 87(2):220–231
10. Fu X, Chung DDL (1997) Effect of corrosion on the bond
between concrete and steel rebar. Cem Concr Res
27(12):1811–1815
11. Lee HS, Noguchi T, Tomosawa F (2002) Evaluation of the
bond properties between concrete and reinforcement as a
function of the degree of reinforcement corrosion. Cem
Concr Res 32(8):1313–1318
12. Sather I (2011) Bond deterioration of corroded steel bars in
concrete. Struct Infrastruct E 7(6):415–429
13. Ersoy U, Özcebe G, Tankut T (2010) Reinforced concrete.
METU Press, Ankara
14. Andrade C, Alonso C, Molina FJ (1993) Cover cracking as a
function of rebar corrosion: Part 1 Experimental test. Mater
Struct 26(8):453–464
15. Rodriguez J, Ortega LM, Casal J, Diez JM (1996) Assessing
structural conditions of concrete structures with corroded
reinforcement. In: Proceedings of 4th international congress
on concrete in service of mankind, Dundee
16. Güneyisi E, Gesoğlu M, Karaboğa F, Mermerdaş K (2012)
Corrosion behaviour of reinforcing steel embedded in
chloride contaminated concretes with and without meta-
kaolin. Compos Part B 45(1):1288–1295
17. Güneyisi E, Özturan T, Gesoğlu M (2005) A study on
reinforcement corrosion and related properties of plain and
blended cement concretes under different curing conditions.
Cem Concr Compos 27(4):449–461
18. Amleh L, Ghosh A (2006) Modeling the effect of corrosion
on bond strength at the steel–concrete interface with finite-
element analysis. Can J Civ Eng 33:673–682
19. Berto L, Simioni P, Saetta A (2008) Numerical modelling of
bond behaviour in RC structures affected by reinforcement
corrosion. Eng Struct 30:1375–1385
20. Topçu İB, Boğa AR, Hocaoğlu FO (2009) Modeling cor-
rosion currents of reinforced concrete using ANN. Automat
Constr 18(2):145–152
21. Lim CH, Yoon YS, Kim JH (2004) Genetic algorithm in mix
proportioning of high performance concrete. Cem Concr
Res 34(3):409–420
Materials and Structures
22. Fairbairn EMR, Silvoso MM, Filho RDT, Alves JLD,
Ebecken NFF (2004) Optimization of mass concrete con-
struction using genetic algorithms. Comput Struct
82(2–3):281–299
23. İnan G, Göktepe AB, Ramyar K, Sezer A (2007) Prediction
of sulfate expansion of PC mortar using adaptive neuro-
fuzzy methodology. Build Environ 42(3):1264–1269
24. Topçu İB, Sarıdemir M (2007) Prediction of properties of
waste AAC aggregate concrete using artificial neural net-
work. Comput Mater Sci 41(1):117–125
25. Topçu İB, Sarıdemir M (2008) Prediction of compressive
strength of concrete containing fly ash using artificial neural
networks and fuzzy logic. Comput Mater Sci 41(3):305–311
26. Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H (2006) Prediction of shear
strength of steel fiber RC beams using neural networks.
Constr Build Mater 20(9):801–811
27. Mermerdaş K, Güneyisi E, Gesoğlu M, Özturan T (2013)
Experimental evaluation and modeling of drying shrinkage
behavior of metakaolin and calcined kaolin blended con-
cretes. Constr Build Mater 43:337–347
28. Duan ZH, Kou SC, Poon CS (2013) Prediction of com-
pressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete using arti-
ficial neural networks. Constr Build Mater 40:1200–1206
29. Ashour AF, Alvarez LF, Toropov VV (2003) Empirical
modeling of shear strength RC deep beams by genetic
programming. Comput Struct 81(5):331–338
30. Goh ATC (1995) Prediction of ultimate shear strength of
deep beams using neural networks. ACI Struct J
92(1):28–32
31. Sadowski L (2013) Non-destructive investigation of corro-
sion current density in steel reinforced concrete by artificial
neural networks. Arch Civ Mech Eng 13(1):104–111
32. Sadowski L (2010) Non-destructive evaluation of the pull-
off adhesion of concrete floor layers using rbf neural net-
work. J Civ Eng Manag 19(4):550–560
33. Sakla SSS, Ashour AF (2005) Prediction of tensile capacity
of single adhesive anchors using neural networks. Comput
Struct 83:1792–1803
34. Dahou Z, Sbartai ZM, Castel A, Ghomari F (2009) Artificial
neural network model for steel-concrete bond prediction.
Eng Struct 31(8):1724–1733
35. Golafshani EM, Rahai A, Sebt MS, Akbarpour H (2012)
Prediction of bond strength of spliced steel bars in concrete
using artificial neural network and fuzzy logic. Constr Build
Mater 36:411–418
36. Eurocode 2: ZESIGN of concrete structures - Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. EN 1992-1-1 Europian
Committee for Standardization. British Standards Institu-
tion 2004
37. Midness S, Young JF, Darwin D (2003) Concrete, 2nd edn.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
38. FIB (2001) Punching of structural concrete slabs. Fib Bul-
letin 12, Technical report, Lausanne
39. Zadeh LA (1994) Soft computing and fuzzy logic. IEEE
Softw 11(6):48–56
40. Koza JR (1991) Genetic programming: On the program-
ming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT
Press, Cambridge
41. Ferreira C (2001) Gene expression programming: a new
adaptive algorithm for solving problems. Complex Syst
13(2):87–129
Materials and Structures
42. GeneXprotools 5.0. http://www.gepsoft.com/. 2015
43. Gao S, Zhang Z, Cao C (2011) Road traffic freight volume
forecast using support vector machine combining forecast-
ing. J Softw 6(9):1680–1687
44. Alexhander I, Morton H (1993) Neurons and symbols: the
staff that mind is made of. Chapman and Hall, London
45. Arbib MA (1995) Handbook of brain theory and NN. MIT
Press, Cambridge
46. Anderson JA (1995) An introduction to neural networks.
A Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge
47. Mukherjee A, Biswas SN (1997) Artificial neural networks
in prediction of mechanical behavior of concrete at high
temperature. Nucl Eng Des 178(1):1–11
48. Topçu İB, Sarıdemir M (2008) Prediction of mechanical
properties of recycled aggregate concretes containing silica
fume using artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic.
Comput Mater Sci 42(1):74–82
49. MatlabV.R2012a. http://www.mathworks.com/help/. 2015