Neural Computing and Applications

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-08043-1 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Developing artificial neural network models to predict corrosion

of reinforcement in mechanically stabilized earth walls
Thu-Ha Nguyen1 • Truong-Linh Chau1 • Tung Hoang1 • Teron Nguyen1

Received: 23 April 2022 / Accepted: 7 November 2022

 Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Corrosion of reinforcement in mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls is mainly due to physical and chemical properties
of back-fill materials, types of metal reinforcement, and environmental factors. Therefore, it is imperative to evaluate the
corrosion levels of reinforcement in the design and construction of MSE walls. This study employed artificial neural
networks (ANN) to build prediction models of corrosion of reinforcement (COR) based on collected corrosion factors from
489 in-situ boring samples of MSE walls on highways in France. The ANN models were built, trained and achieved the
best performance at an ANN structure (12-20-18-1) with one input layer (12 neurons), two hidden layers (20 and
18 neurons) and one output layer (1 neuron). The results have shown that the proposed model can provide a high
coefficient correlation (R = 0.878) and a low mean squared error (MSE = 0.00454 lm2). Furthermore, a sensitivity study
has shown that the factors of sulfate ion (SO42-), humidity, and time were the most important variables which influenced
COR values. The research work could contribute significantly to geotechnical engineering with an optimal ANN model to
predict the COR values of reinforcement metal in MSE walls.

Keywords Corrosion of reinforcement  Artificial neural networks  Mechanically stabilized earth walls  Back-fill materials

Abbreviations W Humidity
ANN Artificial neural network Res Resistivity
COR Corrosion of reinforcement b Average width
MSE walls Mechanically stabilized earth walls E0 Average thickness
R Coefficient of correlation N Tensile strength
MSE Mean squared error F Tensile force of reinforcement
RMSE Root mean squared error e Elongation
Ezn Zinc thickness
List of symbols
t Time
R2 Coefficient of determination
w Weight
h Bias 1 Introduction

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls have been

& Truong-Linh Chau widely used for slope stability and supporting back-fills in
ctlinh@dut.udn.vn infrastructure construction projects [1]. The reinforced soil
& Tung Hoang structure provided many advantages, for example, provid-
hptung@dut.udn.vn ing a longer servicing life and more economical than tra-
Thu-Ha Nguyen ditional cast-in-place concrete walls [2], being suitable for
ntha@dut.udn.vn dynamic loading and difficulty foundation soil with dif-
Teron Nguyen ferential settlements, reducing land requirement, and cost-
teronnguyen@dut.udn.vn saving for the construction process [3]. However, the ser-
vice life of MSE walls using metal reinforcement mainly
1
Faculty of Road and Bridge Engineering, The University of depended on the strength of metal in-service structure [4].
Danang – University of Science and Technology, 54 Nguyen
Luong Bang Str., Danang City, Viet Nam Strength reduction of metal due to long-term corrosion

123

would be commonly caused MSE wall failures with
catastrophic collapses [3].
The MSE walls have deteriorated during operation due
to the corrosion of reinforcement (COR), which in turn led
to concerns of reduced safety levels. For example, the
failure cases of MSE walls happened in Fayette County
Parking Lot of Lexington Civic Center-below KY 1681,
Floyd County, KY 2555 below US 23 [5], and on highway
I-515/Flamingo Road [6]. Figure 1 shows the MSE wall
structure built in Eastern France suddenly collapsed in
2003 (29 years of operation) after a heavy rainstorm [3].
Therefore, geotechnical engineers should suggest early
warnings, maintaining and repairing the MSE walls to
avoid unfortunate problems in construction and operation
of the wall structure. One of the promising solutions is to
predict precisely corrosion levels for evaluating the service
life of MSE walls [3, 7, 8].
To evaluate the COR values in MSE walls, several
methods can be implemented, such as direct measurement
and monitoring of physical models in laboratories or on
construction sites [4, 5, 10–12], statistical analysis after
drilling survey to collect corrosion data [3, 6, 7, 13], and
numerical models for predicting corrosion based on
empirical formulas [4, 13, 14]. Recently, researchers have
used artificial neural network (ANN) models to determine
corrosion rate, corrosion current density, and COR values,
including the corrosion in buried cores in soil and gas
pipelines, and reinforcement of reinforced concrete struc-
tures [15–22]. The ANN is a computational model based on
biological neural networks. The ANN includes a group of
connected artificial neurons, in which information is pro-
cessed by passing connections and calculating new values
at the nodes/neurons [22]. The ANN can model complex
relationships between input and output, along with look for
patterns in data, resulted in higher performance than con-
ventional methods such as statistical analysis and numeri-
cal models [20, 23]. However, there has been no study
investigating the COR of MSE wall by using a large
Fig. 1 a A typical design of MSE wall with reinforcements [3]; b a collapsed MSE wall due to corroded reinforcement [9]
123
Neural Computing and Applications
number of datasets, as well as predicting COR values based
on ANN models. This research gap has motivated us to
conduct such a study, given the collected datasets from 489
in-situ boring samples of 125 MSE walls on French
highways.
2 Literature review
The corrosion of buried reinforcement underground has
been studied by Darbin et al. (1988), who investigated the
corrosion of black and galvanized reinforcement in soil by
measuring the actual electrochemical corrosion rate. The
research work conducted laboratory experiments on cor-
rosion of steel strips buried in soil for 10 consecutive years,
then compared with the in-situ measurement data of cor-
rosion from buried steel strips underground for 17 years
[10]. The research results have determined the character-
istics of black and galvanized strip reinforcement for
selecting types of back-fill material in MSE walls to ensure
a limited corrosion rate of reinforcement. However, the
research has not investigated the relationship among
properties of soil back-fill, reinforcement materials, and the
COR.
Another approach to investigating corrosion rate was
sensing and computational programming. Beckham (2005)
used the ’Geotechnical Data Base’ program to monitor
corrosion rate. The research work also employed an elec-
trical instrument of bias resistance monitor, Model PR4500
manufactured by CC Technologies Systems, Inc.1999 [5].
Li et al. [11] applied resistance sensing (a steel thin-film
electrical resistance) to monitor the COR by measuring
resistance changes in a variety of environments. Those
research works presented the influence of environmental
conditions on the corrosion rate over time, established the
calibration formula, and validated the corrosion models.
The models were built from four environmental variables,
including time-humidity, sulfur dioxide, salinity, and
Neural Computing and Applications
temperature, in order to provide the corrosion assessment
criteria for galvanized or non-galvanized reinforcement.
However, prior studies could not consider the properties of
filling materials and reinforcement metals.
Addressing the limitation from prior works, Padila et al.
[14] developed a numerical model to determine the average
corrosion rate of galvanized steel reinforcement in soil.
The model considered several parameters, including
resistivity, pH, limiting current density, temperature, and
moisture content. The algorithms of model could accu-
rately estimate the damage in galvanized steel caused by
corrosion [14]. However, the prediction model of corrosion
was based on statistical analysis with only five input
parameters, in which it did not consider the nonlinear
factors of soil, reinforcement, and environment related to
corrosion rates.
Other research groups have studied the effects of cor-
rosion on the strength and stability of MSE wall structures.
For example, Bozorgzadeh et al. [7] focused on a statistical
analysis of the corrosion rate in galvanized steel rein-
forcement bars. The reliability theory was used to analyze
the effects of various zinc coating thicknesses on the
probability of tensile failure at the end of design life. The
model provided 99% reliability (2.33 of reliability index)
[7]. In addition, Mirmirani et al. [4] used the Structure
Asset Management program to predict the lifespan of MSE
walls. The program could evaluate the stability of wall,
suggest maintenance solutions for the structure to prolong
the service life, analyze the decrease in cross-sectional area
of reinforcement, and estimate the loss of tensile strength
on reinforcement [4]. However, the program only exam-
ined the reduction of cross-sectional area without consid-
ering the loss of back-fill materials and environmental
factors.
In order to provide early failure warning, prediction of
COR values of reinforcement metals in MSE walls was
essential in geotechnical design. Chau et al. [3] employed a
finite element method to develop various scenarios of
reinforcement corrosion in MSE walls and to investigate
the effects of reinforcement corrosion on the behaviors of
MSE walls. Recently, Chau et al. [13] used multivariable
regression analysis to predict COR values with a high
coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.981). However,
Chau’s work was to analyze only 65 samples of reinforced
soil with rib reinforcement steels, in which there were only
five input parameters of back-fill material (humidity,
resistivity, pH, chloride ion, sulfate ion), and two metal
reinforcement parameters (average thickness, zinc thick-
ness). Arriba-Rodrı́guez et al. [27] has developed a multi-
variable model for estimating the decreased thickness in
hot-dip galvanized steel underground. The model
employed Adaptive Regression of Multivariate Splines
(MARS) with high efficiency: R2 = 0.96; RMSE = 290.6
g/m2 [27]. The MARS model only used seven input
parameters: resistivity, temperature, precipitation, soil
moisture, pH, time, and loss of mass due to the corrosion of
steel rebars.
Recently, the ANN method has been used to predict the
COR in reinforced concrete structures and the corrosion of
gas and oil pipelines. Lukasz Sadowski et al. [15], Ashhad
Imam et al. [16] and Roxas et al. [17] studied the corrosion
current density in reinforced concrete based on many input
variables such as diameter of rebar, duration of corrosion,
temperature, resistivity over the steel bar, resistivity remote
from the steel bar, age, cement content, compressive
strength, type of mixing water, corrosion potential, solution
resistance, and polarization resistance. Mohammed El-
Abbasya et al. [18], Constance Nwankwo et al. [19], Chen
et al. [20] and Ossai [21] investigated the internal corrosion
rate of gas pipelines by using input variables of CO2, H2S,
Cl-, moisture, pH, flow rate, temperature, pressure, and
oxygen.
Table 1 summarizes prior research work using the ANN
method analysis to predict COR values in gas pipe
underground, as well as applying the multivariable
regression for MSE walls. Unfortunately, there are lacking
studies using ANN to examine the COR in MSE walls.
Therefore, this paper employed the ANN method to predict
the COR values based on 12 input variables, including
environmental factors, properties of back-fill, and rein-
forcement materials. In addition, due to nonlinear rela-
tionship between influencing factors (e.g., environmental
factors, properties of back-fill, and reinforcement materi-
als), it is required to develop complex model to predict the
COR values of MSE walls. Our study employed the ANN
model to precisely predict COR values as similar applica-
tions in the literature [24, 25]. It is expected that the
developed ANN model is able to consider multiple inputs
to predict COR values and deliver higher performance than
statistical analysis and numerical models. As a results, the
developed ANN model can be used to estimate the
remaining life of MSE walls with metal reinforcement to
trigger early warning on MSE failure incidents.
3 Methodology and data collection
This research work mainly focused on the electrochemical
corrosion of steel reinforcement caused by back-fill mate-
rials and the impacts from the surrounding environment
[28, 29]. The corrosion included two primary forms: uni-
form corrosion and localized corrosion. The uniform cor-
rosion happened evenly to the steel reinforcement along its
length [3, 28, 29]. This case rarely happened in practice
since each area in each reinforcement length will be
affected by various environmental factors such as pH
123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Table 1 Summary of previous research results on the model of reinforcement corrosion

References Dependent variables Prediction variables Method R2 R RMSE

Sadowski Temperature; AC resistivity over the steel bar; Corrosion current - Imperialist 0.899 0.110
et al. [15] AC resistivity remote from the steel bar; DC density (lA/cm2) competitive
resistivity over the steel bar algorithm-ANN
- Genetic 0.838 0.174
algorithms - ANN
Imam et al. Diameter of rebar; corrosion current density; Correction factor (Cf) - ANN model 1-1 0.938 0.111
[16] duration of corrosion residual flexural - ANN model 1-2 0.964 0.058
strength of the beam
- ANN model 2-1 0.959 7.23
(Mres)
- ANN model 2-2 0.932 7.95
Nwankwo pH; temperature; pressure; aqueous CO2 partial Corrosion rate within - ANN 0.982 –
et al. [19] pressure the period (mm/yr) - Linear 0.499
multivariable
regression
- Full quadratic 0.927
response surface
Roxas et al. Age; w/c; cement content; compressive strength; Corrosion current - ANN 0.859 –
[17] type of mixing water; corrosion potential; density (lA/cm2)
solution resistance; polarization resistance
Chen et al. CO2; H2S; Cl-; moisture; pH; flow rate; The internal corrosion - ANN 0.6863
[20] temperature; pressure; oxygen rate of gas pipeline - Fuzzy neural 0.6273
(mm a-1) network (FNN)
- Dynamic fuzzy 0.5464
neural (D-FNN)
- PCA-D-FNN 0.4232
Arriba– Resistivity; temperature; precipitation; soil Loss of thickness that - Adaptive 0.96 290.6
Rodrı́guez moisture; pH; time hot-dip galvanized Regression of
et al. [27] steel (g/m2) Multivariate
Splines (MARS)
Chau et al. Humidity; resistivity; Cl-; SO42-; average width; COR (lm) - Linear 0.741
[13] average thickness; zinc thickness multivariable
regression
- Nonlinear
multivariable
regression
? Pure quadratic 0.875
response surface
? Interaction 0.957
response surface
? Full quadratic 0.981
response surface

value, surface water, underground water, chemical prop-
erties of back-fill materials, and degree of intrusion [3]. On
the other hand, the localized corrosion was a common
phenomenon that locally corroded the reinforcement on
certain sections along its length [3, 28, 29]. Almost
retaining walls were damaged due to the localized form of
corrosion [3].
The data were collected from 125 in-situ construction
sites, including the mechanical-physical–chemical param-
eters of 770 reinforcement and soil samples on the highway
system in France. The data collection was a part of a
cooperation project among the French Research Institute of
Motorway and Highway Engineering, French National
School for Bridges and Roads, Center for Technical
Research in Road Equipment in the East of France [3].
Figure 2 shows an example of collected corrosion metal
reinforcement samples from in-situ drilling and the insta-
bility of the MSE wall due to corroded reinforcement.
Soil and reinforcement samples were obtained at in-situ
MSE walls during a drilling operation from 2004 to 2007,

123
Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 2 Corroded metal reinforcement in MSE walls [3]: a collected corrosion metal reinforcement samples from in-situ drilling; b instability
MSE wall due to corroded reinforcement

then the collected samples were tested in the laboratory to and 01 variable of the time duration from MSE construc-
determine the properties of back-fill materials and COR tion to the current assessment. The maximum, minimum,
values. In addition, the original dimensions data of rein- mean, standard deviation, and ranges of input data in the
forcement at the beginning of MSE construction were ANN model are presented in Table 2.
provided by the design companies. The properties of back- Figure 3 presents the pair-correlation of all parameters,
fill and reinforcement materials were listed below: in which the e, SO42-, E0, N and Ezn provided the highest
effects on COR values through Pearson correlation coef-
• Properties of the back-fill materials: humidity—W (%),
ficient (PCC) of 0.66; 0.6; - 0.59; - 0.47 and - 0.41,
resistivity—Res (X cm), pH, chloride ion—Cl- (mg/
respectively, whereas the pH parameter presented the most
kg), sulfate ion—SO42- (mg/kg). The properties of
negligible effect on COR values according to PCC of -
back-fill materials were determined according to the
0.17. In addition, it can be seen from Fig. 3 that the Res,
French standard, in which soil moisture was tested by
pH, b, E0, N, F, Ezn affected the COR value in the negative
P94-050 [30], Res impedance and soil pH were tested by
direction, whereas the W, Cl-, SO42-, e, and t affected the
AFNOR A05-250 [31], Cl- ions were tested by NF
COR value in the positive direction. Thus, the COR value
T90-014 [32], SO42- ions were tested by NF T90-009
decreased when the Res, pH, b, E0, N, F, Ezn increased. In
[33].
contrast, when the W, Cl-, SO42-, e and t increased, the
• Initial dimensions of reinforcement: average width—
COR value increased. The trend was utterly consistent with
b (mm), average thickness—E0 (mm), tensile
existing geotechnical standards in the USA [28], Europe
strength—N (Mpa), tensile force of reinforcement—
[29], UK [35] and prior studies [14, 36, 37]. The data set
F (N), elongation—e (%), zinc thickness—Ezn (lm).
includes variables with complex and nonlinear relation-
• Time duration from MSE construction to the current
ships; therefore, the ANN method could provide higher
assessment—t (year).
predicting performance than traditional regression analysis
• Corrosion of reinforcement in MSE walls: COR (lm).
methods [38].
The COR value is defined as the thickness decrease on
one side of the reinforcement metal in MSE walls. For
corroded reinforcement samples, the COR value was
4 Artificial neural network analysis
determined according to AFNOR standard A05-252
[34] with two steps. First step, a visual inspection was
The ANN combines various algorithms to represent rela-
carried out to check the discoloration, rust, and pitting.
tionships in complex data sets by mimicking the mecha-
Second step, the samples were measured to evaluate the
nism of neuronal operation in the human brain [23, 38].
loss in size (thickness, width) and weight between
The ANN structure consists of a series of neurons arranged
before-and-after ZnO oxidation.
into many layers, including the input layer, the hidden
From total 770 data samples, 498 samples (64.68% of layers, and the output layer. The hidden layers are the
the total original samples) with sufficient data on the neurons between the input and output, allowing the ANN to
physical–chemical properties of back-fill materials and learn more complex features than the traditional theories of
reinforcement, were selected for further processing. The machine learning [25, 38]. This study proposed using the
ANN models of COR values prediction were developed ANN structure shown in Fig. 4a, b to train the model.
using 12 input variables, including 11 variables of back-fill Figure 4a presents the ANN structure with the input layer
material properties and initial dimensions of reinforcement, (12 neurons: W, Res, pH, Cl-, SO42-, b, E0, N, F, e, Ezn and

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Table 2 Statistical parameters

Parameter t (year) W (%) Res (X cm) pH Cl- (mg/kg) S042- (mg/kg)
of the input and output data
Number of samples 498 498 498 498 498 498
Mean 21.09 8.02 6451.31 8.06 75.04 128.07
SD 6.57 3.11 4088.24 0.61 67.65 91.18
Minimum 5.00 1.40 414.36 6.30 0.50 0.89
25% 17.00 5.60 3273.50 7.68 23.75 49.02
50% 21.00 8.00 5365.00 8.00 47.08 114.22
75% 27.40 9.89 8806.64 8.50 119.50 187.46
Maximum 36.00 16.59 18,382.00 9.66 290.00 393.00

Parameter b (mm) E0 (mm) N (MPa) F (N) e (%) Ezn (lm) COR (lm)

Number of samples 498 498 498 498 498 498 498

Mean 57.32 4.41 422.78 94,768.65 25.98 36.46 82.24
SD 11.17 1.04 64.97 18,121.07 7.44 12.55 51.26
Minimum 39.53 2.84 198.77 41,296.23 2.18 7.00 2.05
25% 49.44 3.05 360.00 84,653.11 21.86 28.12 42.95
50% 57.59 4.72 420.00 93,710.88 25.92 35.90 67.54
75% 63.25 5.31 474.96 107,485.50 31.23 45.54 110.80
Maximum 81.69 6.12 611.70 146,772.00 44.01 73.17 243.00

Fig. 3 Graphs represented the correlation of each parameter pair in the data set

t), one hidden layer (n neurons: H1, H2, … Hn), and the W, Res, pH, Cl-, SO42-, b, E0, N, F, e, Ezn, and t), two
output layer (1 neuron: COR). In contrast, the ANN hidden layers (the first hidden layer has n neurons: H1.1,
structure in Fig. 4b consists of the input layer (12 neurons: H1.2, … H1.n and the second hidden layer has m neurons:

123
Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 4 Developed ANN structures in this study: a ANN structure with one hidden layer; b ANN structure with two hidden layers

H2.1, H2.2, … H2.m), and the output layer (1 neuron: COR). model was considered fit when both the training and test
In a hidden layer, each loop was executed for n = 1–30 and errors were low, whereas the model overfitting contained
m = 1–30 neurons. minor errors on the training set but substantial errors on the
The ANN combines elementary neurons into an exten- test set [23, 39].
sive network of many neurons to minimize the loss of Python programming language and Google’s tensorflow
function. The weights of the ANN model are trained by AI machine learning library were employed to build ANN
using big data to determine the relationship between input models. The Python can facilitate the development of ANN
and output variables [17, 25]. Each neuron’s value equals models on a web platform, and the tensorflow is an open-
the sum of input signals multiplied by the corresponding source library for machine learning. Adam function with
weights and combined with the transfer function. Several back-propagation algorithms was used to optimize errors,
transfer functions (sigmoid, tanh, and Rectified Linear Unit maintaining the mean square of slopes and overcoming the
(ReLU) functions) were tested to select the best predictive local minima for reaching an optimal point [23, 39].
model. The testing process suggested that using the transfer According to [16, 40], the relationship between input and
function of ReLU with a simple derivative calculation output values in the ANN structure (Fig. 4a, b) is deter-
could increase the training speed [23, 39] and provide a mined by Eqs. (1) for the ANN architecture with one
better prediction model than using the sigmoid and the tanh hidden layer and Eq. (2) for the ANN architecture with two
function. Therefore, the ReLU function was employed as hidden layers, respectively.
the transfer function for training the ANN model. " ! #
Xn X
12
First, the model training phase used a forward propa- y ¼ fR wjh  fR wij xi þ hj þ hh ð1Þ
gation algorithm to determine the weights, then came the j¼1 i¼1
back-propagation algorithm to optimize the loss function. ( " ! # )
X
m X
n X
12
The weights were adjusted until achieving non-reduced y ¼ fR wkh  fR wjk :fR wij xi þ hj þ hk þ hh
errors [17, 22, 40]. The performance of the ANN model k¼1 j¼1 i¼1

was evaluated by the coefficient of correlation (R-value), ð2Þ

root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean squared error
(MSE) [25, 38]. In addition, the Regularization and Early where y is the output variable (COR values); parameter xi is
stopping was used as common techniques to avoid the the ith input variable (i = 1–12); n, m are the number of
overfitting of the model to achieve the best fit model. A neurons in the first and second hidden layers, respectively;

123

and fR is the transfer function; hj (bias) is the threshold
value of the first hidden layer (j = 1–n); hk (bias) is the
threshold value of the second hidden layer (k = 1–m); hh is
the threshold value of the output layer (h = 1); wij is the
connection weight between the ith input neuron and the jth
hidden neuron of the first hidden layer; wjh is the connec-
tion weight between the jth hidden neuron of the hidden
layer and the neuron of the output layer (Eq. (1)); wjk is the
connection weight between the jth hidden neuron of the
first hidden layer and the kth hidden neuron of the second
hidden layer; wkh is the connection weight between the kth
hidden neuron of the 2nd hidden layer and the neuron of
the output layer (Eq. (2)).
5 ANN-based prediction model
5.1 Training and selection of prediction models
Before training the model, all input and output parameters
of the 498 data samples were normalized in [0, 1]. Then,
the sets of training, validation, and test were randomly
generated from the dataset at the ratios of 60:20:20,
respectively [17, 25, 38]. The learning rate was 0.006, and
the maximum number of iterations was 70 Epochs (number
of iterations).
The number of hidden layers and neurons in the hidden
layers have been investigated to optimize the prediction
model based on the R and MSE values as the main per-
formance indicators. Regarding ANN architecture with one
hidden layer with neurons varied from 1 to 30, the training
results provided the best performance at 25 neurons in the
hidden layer, as shown in Fig. 5a. This case showed an R-
value of 0.782 and an MSE value of 0.00984 lm2. Another
ANN architecture with two hidden layers considered
n (1–30) and m (1–30) being the number of neurons in the
first and second hidden layers, respectively. The training
results provided the best model at n = 20 neurons, m = 18
neurons with R = 0.878 and MSE = 0.00454 lm2 as shown
in Fig. 5b. Table 3 summarizes the selected ANN models
with one hidden layer structure (12-25-1) and two hidden
layer structures (12-20-18-1). The ANN structure with two
hidden layers could provide the highest value of R and the
smallest value of MSE; thereby, this ANN structure was
selected for further analysis.
Figure 6 presents the training process results on the
training and validation sets of the selected ANN structure
(12-20-18-1). The errors of the training process, based on
two training and validation sets, rapidly decreased after 20
epochs and kept steadily decreasing until convergence;
thereby, the training model was considered good
[17, 25, 38].
123
Neural Computing and Applications
The correlation coefficient (R-value) depicted the rela-
tionship between the predicted and test values, as shown in
Fig. 7. The data points were concentrated around the best-
fit line which could prove that the predictive model was
good [23, 25, 39] expressed by all performance indicators:
R = 0.878, MSE = 0.00454 lm2, RMSE = 0.06737 lm.
The R, MSE, and RMSE values of the training set, vali-
dation set, and test set were presented in Table 4. It can be
seen from both the training and test sets that ANN model
performance shows high correlation coefficients and low
errors, which were considered accurate and reliable pre-
diction models [15, 25, 38].
For the first time in literature, the study has incorporated
large datasets (from 489 in-situ boring samples of 125
MSE walls on French highways) to develop the ANN
models for predicting values COR with high performance,
considering the contributions of multiple inputs. The ANN
models were built, trained and achieved the best perfor-
mance at an ANN structure (12-20-18-1) with one input
layer (12 neurons), two hidden layers (20 and 18 neurons)
and one output layer (1 neuron). The developed ANN
model can predict the COR with high performance
(R = 0.878 and MSE = 0.00454 lm2).
5.2 Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the relative
importance of input variables to the predicted values
[41–43]. Ibrahim [44] mentioned that several methods were
used to evaluate the relative importance of input to output
variables, such as connection weights algorithm, modified
connection weights, most squares, multiple linear regres-
sion, dominance analysis, Garson’s algorithm and partial
derivative. Partial derivative, multiple linear regression,
and dominance analysis methods could not directly apply
to the ANN model because these methods required re-
editing the data using the theory of multiple regression or
linear regression. The modified connection weights method
required knowing and eliminating the random control
variable; thereby, an extra step of probability analysis must
be added to remove the random variable. The most squares
method could not be used because generating the weights
will impact the results and connection weights between the
hidden and output layers [44].
Because the data will be extracted to analyze the sen-
sitivity in the ANN model, only Garson’s algorithm and
connection weights algorithm methods were suitable for
sensitivity analysis [44, 45]. Garson’s algorithm computes
connection weights and the input-to-output connection
[44, 46]; however, Garson’s algorithm was developed for
neural networks with a single hidden layer [47]. The con-
nection weights algorithm uses input-hidden and output-
hidden weights to calculate the relative contribution of
Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 5 The performance of investigated ANN models: a The ANN model with one hidden layer; b the ANN model with two hidden layers

Table 3 Optimal parameters for the ANN models

Hidden layer Optimal number of neurons R MSE (lm2) Training time (laptop acer intel core i5, 16 Gb Ram)
Hidden layer 1 Hidden layer 2

One layer 25 – 0.782 0.00984 416 s (1–30 neurons/1 hidden layer)

Two layers 20 18 0.878 0.00454 11 640 s (1–30 neurons/each hidden layer)

input variables to output [41, 44]. Olden et al. [46] where Rih is the relative importance of variable xi for the
developed Olden’s connection weights algorithm from the output neuron yh; n is the number of neurons in the first
connection weights algorithm to evaluate the contribution hidden layer, m is the number of neurons in the second
of input variables in ANN architecture with many hidden hidden layer, wij is the connection weight from input
layers [46, 47]. Thus, this study employed Olden’s con- neuron i to hidden neuron j in the first hidden layer; wjk is
nection weights algorithm to analyze model sensitivity the connection weight from the hidden neuron j in the first
with the mathematical expression [46, 47] as follows: hidden layer to the hidden neuron k in the second hidden
!
X m X n layer; wkh is the connection weight from the hidden neuron
Rih ¼ wij wjk ðwkh Þ ð3Þ k in the second hidden layer to the output neuron h. The
k¼1 j¼1

123

Fig. 6 Value of loss function through loops
results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 5 and
Fig. 8.
Table 5 shows the rank of the relative importance of
input parameters to the COR value. It can be seen that
Fig. 7 Relationship between predicted and actual COR values across selected datasets: a training set; b validation set; c test set; d model
123
Neural Computing and Applications
SO42-, W and t showed greater relative importance/con-
tribution than the rest inputs, in which SO42- contributed
greatest with 20,687% (rank 1). E0, Ezn, F, e, N, and Res are
the middle levels with relative importance ranging from
4.415 to 9.268%. The rest inputs b, Cl-, and pH provided
minor contribution (ranks 10, 11, 12) from 0.755 to 4.495%
to the output predicted values. Kolay et al. [48] mentioned
that soluble salts in the soil or environmental factors were
the main factors that impacted reinforcement corrosion. In
addition, when the construction was subjected to moisture
or saltwater intrusion, the corrosion process would be
happened faster and stronger [3, 48]. Padilla et al. [12]
suggested that SO42- ions could be a greater influence on
the COR in MSE walls than Cl- ions. The research work
from Padilla et al. [36] mentioned that the parameters of
Res and pH significantly affected on the COR in MSE
walls, but our study results showed a minimal influence
from those factors. This study revealed that the properties
of back-fill materials were of relative importance to the
COR values, especially SO42- (rank 1) and W (rank 2),
which were consistent with previous research results. In
Neural Computing and Applications

Table 4 The performances of

Performance Training Validation Test ANN model
the selected ANN architecture
(12-20-18-1) Percentage of total samples (%) 60 20 20 100
R 0.886 0.868 0.880 0.878
RMSE (lm) 0.06633 0.07266 0.06587 0.06737
MSE (lm2) 0.00440 0.00528 0.00434 0.00454

Table 5 The relative

Input variable t (year) W (%) Res (X cm) pH Cl- (mg/kg) SO42- (mg/kg)
importance of 12 input
parameters Value 0.803 0.886 - 0.268 - 0.046 0.148 1.255
% 13.233 14.603 4.415 0.755 2.437 20.687
Ranking 3 2 9 12 11 1

Input variable b (mm) E0 (mm) N (MPa) F (N) e (%) Ezn (lm)

Value - 0.151 - 0.562 - 0.387 - 0.558 0.442 - 0.561

% 2.495 9.268 6.385 9.200 7.281 9.241
Ranking 10 4 8 6 7 5

6 Conclusions

This study has developed ANN models to predict the COR

Fig. 8 Illustration of the relative importance of 12 input variables
addition, other important influence factors were the Ezn
accounted for 9.241% (rank 5), the E0 accounted for
9.268% (rank 4), and time duration t accounted for
13.233% (rank 3) in the degree of influence on the COR
value. The average width (b) of reinforcement, on the other
hand, only accounted for 2.495% (rank 10) in relative
importance.
Figure 8 illustrates the influencing directions of all input
parameters to the predicted COR. The COR value
increased proportionally to W, Cl-, SO42-, e and t input
parameters. In contrast, the COR value decreased when the
parameters Res, pH, b, E0, N, F and Ezn increased. Our
findings align with the literature [28, 29, 35] and the pre-
vious research results [36, 37, 48]; hence, the developed
ANN prediction model of COR values is reliable.
values of metal reinforcement in MSE walls. There are 12
input variables, including humidity, resistivity, pH, ion
chloride, ion sulfate, average width, average thickness,
tensile strength, tensile force of reinforcement, elongation,
zinc thickness and time duration. This is the first study that
developed ANN models to predict reinforcement corrosion
in mechanically stabilized earth walls from large input
datasets and variables. The developed ANN models can be
used to assist geotechnical engineers in the investigation of
various inputs when designing metal reinforcement of MSE
walls. Furthermore, based on the predicted COR values
local authorities are able to suggest early warnings, main-
taining and repairing the MSE walls.
After training process, the ANN structure with 2 hidden
layers (12-20-18-1) was selected based on high perfor-
mance indicators including high value of R = 0.878, and
low error MSE = 0.00454 lm2, RMSE = 0.06737 lm. The
sensitivity analysis revealed the relative importance of
input variables in the developed and selected ANN model.
The relative importance can be ranked decreasingly from
SO42-, W, and t as the highest level, to E0, Ezn, F, e, N, and
Res as medium level, and b, Cl-, pH as the lowest level.
The proposed ANN model was reliable for practical
applications to precisely predict COR values from multiple
input parameters.
However, the study remained a limitation that should be
addressed in future studies. The proposed models did not
consider ambient factors such as temperature, climate zone,
and natural corrosion influencing the COR values. In

123

addition, further studies can develop different machine
learning models to improve prediction performance, for
example, the gene-expression programming (GEP)
[49, 50].
Acknowledgements This work was supported by The University of
Danang, University of Science and Technology, the code number of
Project: T2022-02-21.
Data availability All data, models, or codes that support the findings
of this study are available from the corresponding author upon rea-
sonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
1. Hai DH (2012) Design and construction of reinforced earth walls.
Vietnam Construction Publishing House Limited Company (in
Vietnamese)
2. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-NHI-00-043 (2001) Mechanically stabilized earth walls
and reinforced soil slopes design & construction guidelines
3. Chau T-L, Corfdir A, Bourgeois E (2016) Corrosion des arma-
tures sur le comportement des murs en terre armée—effect of
reinforcement corrosion on the behavior of earth walls reinforced
by steel elements (Soustitre: Scénarios de corrosion des armatures
métalliques et les dégradations du mur en terre armée), ISBN
978-3-8417-2710-7, Éditions Universitaires Européennes (EUE)
4. Mirmirani S, Rrokaj T (2018) A study in practice: evaluating the
life expectancy of an MSE wall with steel strip reinforcement,
conference of the Transportation Association of Canada
5. Beckham TL, Sun L, Hopkins TC (2005) Corrosion evaluation of
mechanically stabilized earth walls, University of Kentucky
6. Siddharthan RV, Thornley J, Luke B (2010) Investigation of
corrosion of MSE walls in Nevad, University of Nevada
7. Bozorgzadeh N, Bathurst R, Allen T (2020) Influence of corro-
sion on reliability-based design of steel grid MSE walls. Mater
Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2019.101914
8. Hu B, Luo Z (2018) Life-cycle reliability-based assessment of
internal stability for mechanically stabilized earth walls in a
heavy haul railway. Comput Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2018.04.023
9. Al-Rawabdeh A, Aldosari M, Bullock D, Habib A (2020) Mobile
LiDAR for scalable monitoring of mechanically stabilized earth
walls with smooth panels. Appl Sci 10(13):4480. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app10134480
10. Darbin M, Jailloux và J-M, Montuelle J (1988) Durability of
reinforced earth structures: the results of a long-term study con-
ducted on galvanized steel. Proc Inst Civ Eng 84(1):1029-1057.
https://doi.org/10.1680/IICEP.1988.508
11. Li S, Kim Y-G, Jung S, Song H-S, Lee S-M (2007) Application
of steel thin film electrical resistance sensor for in situ corrosion
monitoring. Sens Actuators B Chem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
snb.2006.02.029
12. Padilla V, Ghods P, Alfantazi A (2013) Effect of de-icing salts on
the corrosion performance of galvanized steel in sulphate con-
taminated soil. Constr Build Mater 40:908–918. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.077
123
Neural Computing and Applications
13. Chau T-L, Nguyen T-H, Vu D-P (2021) A study on the main
factors affecting the reinforcement corrosion in mechanically
stabilized earth walls and predict the service life of the wall. Lect
Notes Civ Eng 203:987–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-
7160-9_100
14. Padila V, Ghods P, Alfantazi A (2014) Parametric studies and
application of a practical model for corrosion of galvanized steel
in soil. Corrosion 70(12):1189–1202. https://doi.org/10.5006/
1284
15. Sadowski L, Nikoo M (2014) Corrosion current density predic-
tion in reinforced concrete by imperialist competitive algorithm.
Neural Comput Appl 25:1627–1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00521-014-1645-6
16. Imam A, Anifowose F, Azad AK (2015) Residual strength of
corroded reinforced concrete beams using an adaptive model
based on ANN. Int J Concrete Struct Mater 9(2):159–172. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40069-015-0097-4
17. Roxas CLC, Lejano BA (2019) An artificial neural network
model for the corrosion current density of steel in mortar mixed
with seawater. Int J Geomate. https://doi.org/10.21660/2019.56.
458515
18. El-Abbasya MS, Senoucib A, Zayeda T, Mirahadia F, Parviz-
sedghya L (2014) Artificial neural network models for predicting
condition of offshore oil and gas pipelines. Autom Constr
45:50–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.003
19. Nwankwo CO, Ihueze CC (2018) Corrosion rate models for oil
and gas pipeline systems: a numerical approach. Int J Eng Tech
Res. https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV7IS080082
20. Chen X, Wang L, Huang Z (2020) Principal component analysis
based dynamic fuzzy neural network for internal corrosion rate
prediction of gas pipelines. Math Probl Eng 2020:Article ID
3681032. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3681032
21. Ossai CI (2020) Corrosion defect modelling of aged pipelines
with a feed-forward multi-layer neural network for leak and burst
failure estimation. Eng Fail Anal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2020.104397
22. Xua Y, Jinb R (2018) measurement of reinforcement corrosion in
concrete adopting ultrasonic tests and artificial neural network.
Constr Build Mater 177:125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.con
buildmat.2018.05.124
23. Tiep VH (2018) Basic machine learning. Publishing Scientific
and Technical
24. Pham BT, Sing SK, Ly HB (2020) Using artificial neural network
(ANN) for prediction of soil coefficient of consolidation. Viet
Acad Sci Technol 42(4):311–319. https://doi.org/10.15625/0866-
7187/42/4/15008
25. Moayedi H, Mosallanezhad M, Rashid ASA, Jusoh WAW (2020)
MA Muazu (2019) A systematic review and meta-analysis of
artificial neural network application in geotechnical engineering:
theory and applications. Neural Comput Appl 32:495–518.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04109-9
26. Gordan B, Koopialipoor M, Clementking A et al (2019) Esti-
mating and optimizing safety factors of retaining wall through
neural network and bee colony techniques. Eng Comput
35:945–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-018-0642-2
27. L-De Arriba-Rodrı́guez, F Ortega-Fernández, JM Villanueva-
Balsera, V Rodrı́guez-Montequı́n, (2021) Corrosion predictive
model in hot-dip galvanized steel buried in soil. Res Article Open
Access. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9275779
28. Elias V, Fishman KL, Christopher BR, Berg RR (2009) Corro-
sion/degradation of soil reinforcements for mechanically stabi-
lized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes, Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-NHI-
09-087
29. AFNOR EN P94-270:2020 Calcul géotechnique Ouvrages de
soutènement
Neural Computing and Applications
30. NFP 94-050 (1995) Sols: Reconnaissance et Essais - Détermi-
nation de la teneur en eau pondérale des matériaux – Méthode par
étuvage, Association Francaise de Normalisation
31. AFNOR A05-250 (1990) Corrosion par les sols - Évaluation de la
corrosivité - Canalisations enterrées en matériaux ferreux non ou
peu allies, Association Francaise de Normalisation
32. NF T90-014 (2017) Essais des eaux - Dosage des ions chlore,
Association Francaise de Normalisation
33. NF T90-009 (2008) Essais des eaux - Dosage des ions sulfate -
Méthode gravimétrique, Association Francaise de Normalisation
34. A05-252 (1990) Corrosion dans les sols - Aciers galvanisés ou
non mis au contact de matériaux naturels de remblai (sols),
Association Francaise de Normalisation
35. BS 8006-1:2010—Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced
soils and other fills. ISBN 978 0 580 53842 1
36. Padila V, Ghods P, Alfantazi A (2013) A novel model to predict
the corrosion of mechanically stabilized earth structures. In:
Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada Win-
nipeg, Manitoba
37. Klinesmith DE, McCuen RH, Albrecht P (2007) Effect of envi-
ronmental conditions on corrosion Rates. J Mater Civ Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:2(121)
38. Kim Y, Oh H (2021) Comparison between multiple regression
analysis, polynomial regression analysis, and an artificial neural
network for tensile strength prediction of BFRP and GFRP.
Materials 14:4861. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14174861
39. Dung TQ, Ha LT, Khang PD (2019) Using artificial neural net-
work to predict porosity. Viet Oil Gas J 7:18–27
40. Oreta A (2012) Artificial neural networks: multi-layer feedfor-
ward networks using back propagation, CIV578D Lecture Notes,
De La Salle University-Manila
41. Nguyen T, Nguyen-Phuoc DQ, Wong YD (2021) Developing
artificial neural networks to estimate real-time onboard bus ride
comfort. Neural Comput Appl 33:5287–5299. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00521-020-05318-3
42. Tran TTT, Nguyen T, Pham PN, Nguyen HH, Nguyen PQ (2021)
Thermal distribution in cement-treated base: effect of curing
methods and temperature estimation using. Artif Neural Netw
Constr Build Mater 279:122528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.con
buildmat.2021.122528
43. Olden JD, Jackson DA (2002) Illuminating the ‘‘black box’’: a
randomization approach for understanding variable contributions
in artificial neural networks. Ecol Model 154:135–150. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00064-9
44. Ibrahim OM (2013) A comparison of methods for assessing the
relative importance of input variables in artificial neural net-
works. J Appl Sci Res 9(11):5692–5700
45. Garson GD (1991) Interpreting neural-network connection
weights. AI Expert 6(4):46–51
46. Olden JD, Joy MK, Death RG (2004) An accurate comparison of
methods for quantifying variable importance in artificial neural
networks using simulated data. Ecol Model 178:389–397. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.03.013
47. Beck MW (2018) NeuralNetTools: visualization and analysis
tools for neural networks. J Stat Softw 85(11):66. https://doi.org/
10.18637/jss.v085.i11
48. Kolay PK, Tajhya D, Mondal K (2019) Corrosion of steel in MSE
walls due to deicers and backfill aggregates. Geotech Geol Eng
38:2493–2507
49. Pham VN, Oh E, Ong DEL (2022) Effects of binder types and
other significant variables on the unconfined compressive
strength of chemical-stabilized clayey soil using gene-expression
programming. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00521-022-06931-0
50. Pham V-N, Oh E, Ong DEL (2021) Gene-expression program-
ming-based model for estimating the compressive strength of
cement-fly ash stabilized soil and parametric study. Infrastruc-
tures 6(12):181. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6120181
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
123