Delft University of Technology

Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in concrete

Prem, Prabhat R.; Savija, Branko

DOI
10.12989/sem.2022.84.5.651
Publication date
2022
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Citation (APA)
Prem, P. R., & Savija, B. (2022). Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in
concrete. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 84(5), 651-664.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2022.84.5.651

Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.

Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent
of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.
We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10.
Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository

'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project

https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care

Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher

is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the
Dutch legislation to make this work public.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 84, No. 5 (2022) 651-664
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2022.84.5.651 651

Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation

of ribbed steel bars in concrete
Prabhat R. Prem1 and Branko Savija2a
1
CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai 600 113, India
2
Micro Lab., Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

(Received July 25, 2022, Revised October 7, 2022, Accepted October 28, 2022)

Abstract. A precise prediction of the ultimate bond strength between rebar and surrounding concrete plays a major role in
structural design, as it effects the load-carrying capacity and serviceability of a member significantly. In the present study,
Gaussian models are employed for modelling bond strength of ribbed steel bars embedded in concrete. Gaussian models offer a
non-parametric method based on Bayesian framework which is powerful, versatile, robust and accurate. Five different Gaussian
models are explored in this paper-Gaussian Process (GP), Variational Heteroscedastic Gaussian Process (VHGP), Warped
Gaussian Process (WGP), Sparse Spectrum Gaussian Process (SSGP), and Twin Gaussian Process (TGP). The effectiveness of
the models is also evaluated in comparison to the numerous design formulae provided by the codes. The predictions from the
Gaussian models are found to be closer to the experiments than those predicted using the design equations provided in various
codes. The sensitivity of the models to various parameters, input feature space and sampling is also presented. It is found that
GP, VHGP and SSGP are effective in prediction of the bond strength. For large data set, GP, VHGP, WGP and TGP can be
computationally expensive. In such cases, SSGP can be utilized.
Keywords: bond strength; concrete; gaussian; modelling; steel bars

1. Introduction bar diameter (db) is not found in the literature. The

The development of adequate bond strength is very
critical to achieve composite action. Adequate bond strength
is of paramount importance for ensuring the stability of
building structures. During the service stage, bond strength
is responsible for affecting crack widths, crack distribution
and crack spacing (Chen et al. 2004, Prem et al. 2021a, b,
Lv et al. 2021, Moodi et al. 2021). During the ultimate
stage, bond strength impacts the end anchorages and lap
joint. The bond strength also plays a major role in affecting
the rotational and ultimate capacity of plastic hinges if the
development/splice length is not designed properly (Prem et
al. 2018, Gu and Wang 2022). The theory behind the bond
relationship for the case of spliced and deformed bars is
originally given by Tepfers (1973) and later modified for
proposing the bond strength equation (Orangun et al. 1977,
Kemp and Wilhelm 1979, Eligehausen et al. 1982). The
studies were further expanded by (Su et al. 2020) to
propose bond slip models and extend for bonding with
GFRP bars (Tekle et al. 2020). Table 1 highlights some of
the bond strength models available in literature. Most of the
models are developed based on the testing of beam splice
and beam end specimens. The developed models need
further investigations and better calibration for the reasons
as follows. A direct relationship between bond strength and
Corresponding author, Principal Scientist
E-mail: prabhat@serc.res.in
a
Assistant Professor
Copyright © 2022 Techno-Press, Ltd.
http://www.techno-press.com/journals/sem&subpage=7
proportion of maximum bond strength and tensile strength
of concrete rises with the proportion between anchorage
length and db till anchorage length is smaller than 5db.
Some of the models do not consider the effect of
embedment length (Esfahani and Rangan 1998, Harajli
2004, CEB-FIB 2013). The effect of confinement is also not
considered in many models. The design equation in
Australian standard (AS3600 2018) undervalue bond
strength. On the other hand, the Chinese standard (50010-
2010 2010) over-predicts the bond strength. The bond
strength between embedded steel bars and concrete depends
on chemical adhesion, friction resistance, and mechanical
interlock. This parameter lead to a complex interaction
behavior between steel and concrete, which is difficult to
model. The deficiency in confinement leads to splitting
failure while higher bond length results in pull-out failure.
Pull-out test is a versatile test method to evaluate the bond
strength. However, the embedment length considered for
pull-out test is found to vary between the different codes
(Rilem 1994, CEB-FIB 2013) and several published
research. The local and global bond behaviors are also not
considered in standard building codes (Zhou et al. 2017,
Chen and Nepal 2015). Recently, various Kernel and
Gaussian methods are applied successfully predict
mechanical properties (Verma et al. 2017, Prem et al.
2019), evaluate composite behaviour (Thirumalaiselvi et al.
2018), and non-destructive examination (Prem and Murthy
2017) etc. The present study, expands further on the above
studies to apply Gaussian Process (GP), Variational
Heteroscedastic Gaussian Process (VHGP), Warped
Gaussian Process (WGP), Sparse Spectrum Gaussian
ISSN: 1225-4568 (Print), 1598-6217 (Online)
652 Prabhat R. Prem and Branko Savija

Table 1 Bond strength models complicated processes and many non-Gaussian processes
Reference Model may be modelled. In the context of supervised learning, it
Orangun et al. 3𝑐min 50𝑑𝑏 𝐴𝑠𝑡1 𝑓𝑦𝑡
offers a precise and reliable Bayesian framework. It yields
√𝑓𝑐 [1.2 + + + 500𝑠𝑑 ] linear and theoretically predictable answers. By assigning
(1977) 𝑑𝑏 𝑙𝑏 𝑏

Xu 0.7𝑐min 𝐴𝑠𝑡1
priors to the functions and choosing appropriate kernels, it
𝑓𝑡 [1.6 + + 20 𝑠𝑐 ] has benefit of introducing previously known information
(1990) 𝑑𝑏 min
1 into the system. It has ability to incorporate the uncertainty
(𝑓𝑐 )4
Zuo and 𝜋𝑑𝑏 𝑙𝑏
[59.8𝑙𝑏 (𝐶min + 0.5𝑑𝑏 ) + 2,350𝐴𝑏 ] + estimation in the deep training model, unlike other machine
Darwin 𝐶 (𝑓 )4
1
𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑡 1
learning approaches like linear regression, neural networks,
(2000) 0.1 𝐶max + 0.9 + 𝜋𝑑𝑐 𝑙 [31.14𝑡𝑟 𝑡𝑑 + support vector machines, etc. The output is the distribution
min 𝑏 𝑏 𝑛
3.99)](√𝑓𝑐 ) of the predicted variable and not just one single value.
2⁄ Other machine learning algorithms don’t include this data in
Harajli 𝐴 3
√𝑓𝑐 [0.78 [(𝑐min + 7 𝑆 𝑠𝑡𝑛) /𝑑𝑏 ] ] their learning processes. Additionally, the training data set is
(2004) 𝑖
1
used directly to get the hyper parameters of the Gaussian
1+
𝜏𝑐 1.85+0.024√ 𝑀 (0.88 + 0.12 𝐶𝑚𝑒𝑑 ) (1 +
𝑀 𝐶 models.
𝐴𝑠𝑡1 𝐴𝑏
min In the present study, the effect of bar diameter,
Esfahani and 0.015 ) proportion of splice length to bar diameter (ls/db), relative
𝐶min 𝑠
Kianoush 𝑓 rib area of reinforcement (Rr), compressive strength of
(2005) 𝑀 = cosh (0.0022𝑙𝑏 √3 𝑑𝑐 )
𝑏 concrete (fc), proportion of minimum cover to bar diameter
𝐶min /𝑑𝑏 + 0.5 (Cmin/db), transverse reinforcement index (Atrfy/sndb) and
𝜏𝑐 = 2.7 √𝑓
𝐶min /𝑑𝑏 + 3.6 𝑐 yield strength of rebar (fy) on bond strength is modelled
0.265√𝑓𝑐 (
𝑐min
+ 0.5) using Gaussian processes. The models are validated using
AS3600 (2018) 𝑑
experimental observations. The performance of the models
𝑐min = min(𝑐𝑠𝑜, 𝑐𝑏 )
(𝑓𝑐 )1/4
is also compared with various codal formulas. The
[59.9𝑙𝑏 (𝐶min + 0.5𝑑𝑏 ) + 2,400𝐴𝑏 ] + sensitivity analysis of the models is also carried out to study
𝜋𝑑𝑏 𝑙𝑏
ACI408R-03 𝐶max (𝑓𝑐 )1/4 𝑁𝐴𝑠𝑡 1 their robustness. The methodology used for the current
(2012) 0.1 𝐶 + 0.9 + [30.88𝑡𝑟 𝑡𝑑 +
min 𝜋𝑑𝑏 𝑙𝑏 𝑛 study is presented in Fig. 1. The comparison of the different
3)](√𝑓𝑐 ) Gaussian models is (Verma et al. 2023) given in Table 2.
𝑓 0.25 25 0.25 𝑙 0.25
CEB-FIB 54 (25𝑐 ) (𝑑 ) (𝑑𝑏 )[𝛼2 + 𝑘𝑚 𝐾𝑡𝑟 ]
𝑏 𝑏
(2013) 𝐶min 0.25 𝐶max 0.1
2. Data set preparation
𝛼2 = ( ) (𝐶 )
𝑑𝑏 min

CSA-A23.3 0.2768
[
𝐴𝑡𝑟 𝑓𝑦𝑡
+
𝑑𝑐𝑠
] √𝑓𝑐 The basis for variable selection, partitioning of the data
(2004) ∏4𝑖=1 𝑘𝑖 10.5𝑠𝑛𝑑𝑏 𝑑𝑏
and preliminary data analysis are presented in this section.
EC2 2.25ῃ1 ῃ2 𝑓𝑐𝑡𝑑
(2004) ∏5𝑖=1 𝛼𝑖 2.1 Selection of input feature space
𝐶min 15 𝐴𝑡𝑟
0.31[(0.318 + 0.795 ( + )) +
JSCE 𝑑𝑏 𝑠 𝑑𝑏 Based on the critical review of the literature and the
(2007) 𝑑𝑏 study of the models presented in Table1, the major
13.3 ] √𝑓𝑐 parameters affecting the bond strength are found to be db,
𝑙𝑠
Rr, fc, Cmin/db, Atrfy/sndb, ls/db and fy. The experimental
Wu and 2.5
observations are collected from the literature which have
√𝑓𝑐 ( )
Zhao (2013)
1+3.1 𝑒
−0.47((𝐶min/𝑑 )+33𝐾𝑡𝑟 )
𝑏 considered all the aforementioned parameters (Darwin et al.
1995, Esfahani and Rangan 1998, Zuo and Darwin 2000
Mousavi et al. 3.9 Harajli 2004, CEB-FIB 2013, Golafshani et al. 2014). The
√𝑓𝑐 ( )
(2017) −0.54((𝐶min/𝑑𝑏 )+(
𝑑𝑏
⁄𝑙 )) test specimen consisted of a concrete cube embedded with a
1 + 12 𝑒 𝑏
10 mm diameter steel rod embedded in the centre of the
Rockson et al.
-2.84 + 0.84 (
𝐶min
) + 1.44 √𝑓𝑐 cross section. The bond strength was then evaluated by
(2020) 𝑑𝑏 performing pull-out tests using standard testing procedure.

2.2 Data set partitioning

Process (SSGP), and Twin Gaussian Process (TGP) for
modelling of bond strength. Although there have been
extensive investigations in the literature on evaluating bond
strength, it is found that most of the models are empirical
and complex in nature, due to dependency on various
variables. The following are the justifications for selecting
Gaussian models over other machine learning techniques.
Based on the central limit theorem, the combination of
several independent random processes or variables tends to
follow a Gaussian distribution. The distribution of many
The collected data now needs to be partitioned for the
training and testing of the Gaussian models. The collected
data set has a sample size of 225. The data has eight
attributes in total, out of which seven are input parameters
and one is output parameter for the models. A total of 184
samples are used for training while 41 samples are used for
testing. The selection of samples for the training and testing
data sets need to carried out in a meaningful way. Towards
this end, various statistical properties of the complete data
 Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in concrete 653

Fig. 1 Framework adopted in the present study

Fig. 2 Correlation between different input variables

set are evaluated. After partitioning of the data, same
statistical properties are evaluated for the training and
testing data sets. The data is partitioned in such a way the
statistical properties of the training and testing data sets are
close to that of the complete data set. This ensures that the
models are trained for the complete range of the input
parameters. This also makes sure that the prediction of the
bond strength is not requested for the parameters whose
range exceed the value for which it was trained. The
statistical properties of the input and output parameters for
training, testing and complete data set are given in Table 3.
It can be seen that the statistical properties of the data in all
three groups are close to each other.
2.3 Data analysis
A feature correlation heat map is plotted between the
input and output feature space as shown in Fig. 2. A pair
plot is shown in Fig. 3 to visualize the relation between
different variables. The inference from the same is as
follows -
• It is observed that there is a strong negative correlation
654 Prabhat R. Prem and Branko Savija

Table 2 Comparison of different Gaussian models

Method Features Evaluation Solver Mathematical representation Complexity Inference
GP prior with zero mean are
𝑦𝑛 = 𝑓(𝑥𝑛 ) + 𝜀𝑛 ; Efficient only with
placed on the latent function
Maximizing 3 small data set, output
GP while Gaussian priors are Exact 𝑓(𝑥𝑛 ) ∼𝐺𝑃 (0, 𝑘𝜃 ); O(𝑛 )
marginal likelihood modelled as
placed on the noise with 𝜀𝑛 ∼N (0, 𝜎 2 ) observations from GP
constant variance
GP prior with zero mean are 𝑦𝑛 = 𝑓(𝑥𝑛 ) + 𝜀𝑛 ; Useful when the
placed on the latent function 𝑓(𝑥𝑛 ) ∼gp (0, 𝑘𝜃 ); variance of the output
Maximizing Approx
VHGP while Gaussian priors are O(𝑛3 ) feature space is not
marginal likelihood . 𝜀𝑛 ∼ 𝑁(0, e𝑔(𝑥𝑛 ) )
placed on the noise with constant but input
input-dependent variance 𝑔(𝑥) ∼gp(𝜇0 , 𝑘𝜃𝑔 ) dependent
𝑦𝑛 = g(𝑓(𝑥𝑛 )) + 𝜀𝑛 ; Useful when the
𝑓 ∼ GP (𝜇 , 𝑘 ); observed output
Output is modeled as Maximizing (𝑥) 0 𝜃
WGP Exact O(𝑛3 ) feature space is not
nonlinear-distortion of GP marginal likelihood g(𝑓)∼gp (𝑓, 𝑘𝜃𝑔 )
well represented by a
𝜀𝑛 ∼ 𝑁(0, 𝜎 2 ) GP
Non-convex Computationally
Spectral densities of marginal likelihood 𝑦𝑛 = 𝑓(𝑥𝑛 ) + 𝜀𝑛 ; 𝑓(𝑥) ∼ gp(0, 𝑘𝜃 ); efficient, requires less
SSGP stationary GP are used for solved using Sparse 𝜀 𝑛 ∼ N (0, 𝜎 2 ) O(nm 2) memory and very
𝜎 2
sparification numerical 𝑘𝜃 = 𝑚0 ∑𝑚 𝑟=1 cos(2𝜋𝑠 𝑇
𝑟 (𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥𝑗))
useful while dealing
optimization with large data set
Useful for multiple
Minimization of
Gaussian priors are placed output system,
the 𝑦𝑛 ∼𝑁𝑥 (0, 𝑘𝜃𝑥 )
TGP on both input and output Exact O(𝑛3 ) captures the
KullbackLeibler 𝑦𝑛 ∼𝑁𝑦 (0, 𝑘𝜃𝑦 )
feature space correlation among the
divergence offset
output

Fig. 3 Pairwise correlation between different input variables

between the ratio of splice length to bar diameter and
the bond strength. This is true because the increase in
the ratio of splice length to bar diameter results in
decrease of bond strength as per (ACI408R-03 2012)
and (JSCE 2007).
• A negative correlation exists between the bar diameter
and the bond strength indicating that a smaller diameter
bar has more bond strength compared to the bigger
diameter bars.
• A positive correlation is observed between minimum
concrete cover to bar diameter ratio and bond strength.
As the ratio increases, the bond strength increases due to
the confinement effect.
• A positive correlation is observed between the
reinforcement index and bond strength. This is apparent
since well-confined steel bars with the stirrups are
expected to exhibit higher bond strength compared to
unconfined bars.
• The bond strength has a positive correlation with the
concrete compressive strength. This is in line with the
equations provided in various design codes (ACI408R-
03 2012, CEB-FIB 2013, CSA-A23.3 2004, EC2 2004,
JSCE 2007).
 Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in concrete 655

Table 3 Statistical properties of data set mean (M), standard Table 4 Error indices for the Gaussian models
error (SE), median (ME) ERROR INDICES
Complete data set S. NO MODEL
ME RMSE MAE R
M 28.05 0.10 1.56 30.24 19.12 51.24 638.40 5.34
1. GP 0.011 0.517 0.405 0.973
SE 0.58 0.00 0.04 1.08 2.67 1.69 9.96 0.12
2. VHGP 0.014 0.511 0.399 0.974
ME 25.40 0.09 1.50 24.00 9.18 40.14 555.66 5.24
MO 25.40 0.08 1.50 16.00 0.00 35.86 827.59 5.32 3. SSGP 0.011 0.508 0.400 0.974
SD 8.69 0.03 0.55 16.23 40.10 25.28 149.37 1.73 4. WGP 0.266 1.611 1.239 0.697
V 75.48 0.00 0.30 263.28 1608.14 639.20 22311.68 2.99 5. TGP 0.085 0.821 0.648 0.925
K 6.55 0.31 2.03 1.57 23.99 -0.03 -1.67 0.33
S 1.94 1.05 1.04 1.39 4.71 1.07 0.23 0.44
R 50.80 0.12 2.90 87.00 271.21 86.27 413.80 9.84 model is near to 45◦, indicating that the predicted values are
Min 12.70 0.06 0.60 7.00 0.00 24.10 413.79 1.52 quite close to those found in the trials. According to the
Max 63.50 0.18 3.50 94.00 271.21 110.37 827.59 11.36 figure, GP, VHGP, and SSGP perform better than WGP and
Training TGP in terms of bond strength prediction since they are
M 27.89 0.10 1.55 30.28 18.21 51.78 632.43 5.28 closer to the line of best fit. For WGP, it is discovered that
SE 0.64 0.00 0.04 1.22 2.67 1.91 11.07 0.12 there is the least connection between experimental and
ME 25.40 0.09 1.50 24.00 9.18 40.24 555.66 5.22 projected bond strength. The mean error (ME), mean
MO 25.40 0.08 1.50 16.00 0.00 35.86 827.59 5.32 absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE),
SD 8.73 0.03 0.52 16.61 36.28 25.87 150.10 1.63 and correlation coefficient (R), which are determined by the
V 76.26 0.00 0.27 275.85 1315.98 669.06 22530.47 2.66 following formulae, are used to compare the anticipated and
K 6.94 0.31 1.78 1.75 26.06 -0.16 -1.63 0.40 experimental results.
S 2.08 1.04 0.86 1.45 4.77 1.03 0.28 0.34 1
𝑀𝐸 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑦𝑖 − 𝑥𝑖 (1)
R 50.80 0.12 2.90 87.00 271.21 86.27 413.80 9.84 𝑛
Min 12.70 0.06 0.60 7.00 0.00 24.10 413.79 1.52 1
𝑀𝐴𝐸 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1|𝑦𝑖 − 𝑥𝑖 | (2)
Max 63.50 0.18 3.50 94.00 271.21 110.37 827.59 11.36 𝑛

Testing 1 2
M 28.78 0.10 1.63 30.08 23.18 48.82 665.17 5.60
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = √ ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑦𝑖 2 − 𝑥𝑖 ) (3)
𝑛
SE 1.34 0.01 0.10 2.28 8.50 3.53 22.62 0.33 𝑛(∑ 𝑥𝑖 𝑦𝑖 )−∑ 𝑥𝑖 ∑ 𝑦𝑖
ME 25.40 0.08 1.45 24.00 8.58 37.86 558.62 5.26 𝑅= (4)
√[𝑛 ∑ 𝑥𝑖 2 −∑ 𝑥𝑖 2 ][𝑛 ∑ 𝑦𝑖 2 −∑ 𝑦𝑖 2 ]
MO 25.40 0.08 2.13 24.00 0.00 36.21 827.59 4.55
SD 8.55 0.03 0.67 14.57 54.44 22.61 144.81 2.12 where yi are the predictions, xi are the experimental bond
V 73.16 0.00 0.44 212.31 2964.23 511.20 20969.75 4.50 strength and n is the number of samples. The error indices
K 5.86 0.34 1.82 -0.09 16.74 0.80 -1.90 -0.30 are shown in Table 4. The RMSE of the models follow the
S 1.39 1.12 1.31 0.99 4.14 1.29 0.04 0.52 order — WGP>TGP>GP>VHGP>SSGP. The RMSE and R
R 50.80 0.11 2.90 52.54 271.21 79.96 375.59 9.00 values for the models GP, VHGP and SSGP are close to
Min 12.70 0.07 0.60 12.00 0.00 27.97 452.00 1.92 each other. The WGP model is found to be least efficient in
Max 63.50 0.18 3.50 64.54 271.21 107.93 827.59 10.92 the prediction of bond strength compared to other Gaussian
models. This is presumed to be due to the limited number of
basic functions (five in this case) used for warping. Other
3. Results and discussions factors can be overfitting and non-modelling of additional
output noise after warping. In comparison to other models,
The bond strength is predicted in this section using GP, SSGP and VHGP are proven to have greater predicting
VHGP, SSGP, WGP, and TGP models. The models are first abilities when considering the total error indices.
trained using the training data set. The models thus
produced are then applied to the testing data set to predict 3.3 Residuals
the bond strength. Based on (i) error indices, (ii) residuals,
(iii) convergence, and (iv) computing time, the effectiveness The term “residual” refers to the discrepancy between
and capacity of the models to forecast bond strength are the actual and expected bond strength. The variability of the
assessed. The same’s specifics are expanded below. residuals aids in examining the model’s consistency in
correctly forecasting bond strength. Figure 6b displays the
3.1 Error indices distribution of the residuals for each Gaussian model as a
box plot. The 25th and 75thpercentiles are represented by
Fig. 4 illustrates the bond strength produced from the box’s outer corners, while the median is represented by
several Gaussian models with the experimental data. It is the red line in the centre. The outliers are identified by the
clear that the predictions of GP, VHGP, and SSGP are rather red symbols. For SSGP and WGP the changes in the
similar to the results of the trials. In Fig. 5, the black dots residuals are found to be least and most, respectively. Also,
indicate the sample of testing data, and the yellow line is the for SSGP and WGP, the mean residual is minimal and
line of best fit. The slope of the line of best fit for a decent maximum, respectively.
656 Prabhat R. Prem and Branko Savija

Fig. 4 Output from models versus experimental results

(a) GPR (b) VHGP

(c) SSGP (d) WGP

Fig. 5 Correlation between experiments and bond strength predicted using Gaussian models for the testing

3.4 Computational time complete all of the tasks necessary for training the models.
The amount of CPU time used by various models is
The models’ computational time is stated in terms of displayed in Fig. 6(c). As can be seen, VHGP requires the
CPU time, which represents how long it takes the CPU to most computing time, whereas TGP requires the least. In
 Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in concrete 657

(a)
Fig. 5 Continued

Table 5 Error indices for the various design codes

ERROR INDICES
S. NO MODEL
ME RMSE MAE R
1. ACI 318 0.305 1.688 0.900 0.628
2. CSA 0.207 1.313 0.991 0.859
3. EC2 0.508 1.644 1.127 0.696
4. CEB-FIB 0.358 1.684 1.146 0.640
5. JSCE 0.041 0.932 0.731 0.916

addition, SSGP has a reduced computational cost as

compared to GP, VHGP, and WGP. This is explained by the (b)
fact that SSGP employs sparse representation, which lowers
the difficulty of the GP method from O(n3) to O(nm2),
where n and m are the quantity of training samples and
basis function, respectively.

4. Comparison with the codal formulas

In order to further validate the practical application of

proposed Gaussian models, the experimental variables are
taken as input, and the bond strength values are evaluated
based on guidelines suggested by standard codes and
compared with results obtained from GP, VHGP, SSGP,
TGP, and WHGP. For the comparison, the Canadian
(c)
Standard (CSA) (CSAA23.3 2004), the Japanese
specifications for design of concrete structures (JSCE Fig. 6 Performance evaluation in terms of (a) convergence,
2007), the American Standard (ACI408R-03 2012), the (b) box plot of RMSE and (c) computational time
Model code (CEB-FIB 2013) and Eurocode2 (EC2 2004)
recommendations are selected to evaluate ub. The
comparison of the bond strength predicted using the Gaussian methods falls between 5.332-5.612, while that
Gaussian models with the experiments and the codal from codes lies in the range of 5.005-5.155, respectively.
formulas is shown in Fig. 7. The error indices evaluated for The GP, SSGP, and VHGP are discovered to be superior
various codes are summarized in Table 5. The output approaches for bond strength prediction when variation and
obtained from the Gaussian models and various codes are mean are taken into account.
also given as histogram plot in Fig. 8. A Gaussian
distribution is fit over the plotted data. The mean and
variance of the distribution are also given on the top right 5. Sensitivity analysis
corner of each of the plots. The mean and variance of the
projected data using Gaussian models are clearly closer to The sensitivity to various parameters, number of inputs,
the experiments than those produced from codal formulae number of training data points and external data set are
(See Fig. 8). The range of mean for the predicted ub from presented in this section.
658 Prabhat R. Prem and Branko Savija

Fig. 7 Comparison of bond strength predicted from Gaussian models with those obtained using codal formulas for
testing data set

Table 6 Variation of error indices with the number of input

5.1 Parameter sensitivity variables
Parameters Method ME RMSE MAE R
The outcomes discussed in the preceding section show
GP 0.025 0.583 0.441 0.965
how well the model predicts bond strength. The final bond
VHGP 0.020 0.585 0.438 0.964
strength value derived from the models reflects the db,Cmin/db,ls/
SSGP 0.021 0.579 0.431 0.965
combined influence of these factors’ fluctuation. A decent db,Atrfyt/sndb,fc,fy
model cannot, however, anticipate the cumulative effect of WGP 0.024 0.581 0.442 0.965
the parameter fluctuations. A model must also have a TGP 0.042 0.742 0.604 0.937
comparable trend of individual parameter change to that GP 0.011 0.717 0.532 0.943
seen in the tests. This guarantees that the model properly VHGP 0.010 0.715 0.528 0.944
db,Cmin/db,ls/
captures the fundamental physics underlying the activity. SSGP 0.020 0.718 0.527 0.943
db,Atrfyt/sndb,fc
With the aid of contour and surface plots (given in Figs. 9 WGP 3.000 19.069 3.485 -0.325
and 10), the impact of the various factors on the bond TGP 0.152 0.958 0.747 0.894
strength is displayed. Each column refers to a separate GP 0.010 0.718 0.535 0.943
model, whereas each row represents a variant of a certain VHGP 0.005 0.714 0.527 0.943
parameter. The X-axis for the graphs indicates the Cmin/db,ls/
SSGP 0.023 0.729 0.540 0.941
fluctuation in the bar’s diameter. The Y-axis of the contour db,Atrfyt/sndb,fc
WGP 0.006 0.715 0.536 0.944
plots displays the fluctuations in all the other parameters.
TGP 0.180 1.106 0.825 0.894
The effectiveness of the models is compared to the contour
GP 0.084 0.766 0.580 0.943
plots that are acquired from the experiments. From Fig. 9, it
can be depicted that the effect of variations in the VHGP 0.095 0.764 0.571 0.940
Cmin/db,ls/
parameters Rr, ls/db, Atrfy/sndb and fy are well captured by SSGP 0.039 0.825 0.650 0.925
db,Atrfyt/sndb
most of the models except WGP. The variations in the WGP 0.051 0.773 0.599 0.938
parameters Cmin/db and fc are captured satisfactorily by GP, TGP 0.145 1.320 1.038 0.793
VHGP and SSGP.

5.2 Sensitivity to size of input feature space
The results of the Gaussian models depend on the
number of input parameters used for the modelling. The
output of the Gaussian models might be less sensitive to
some of the input parameters that are used for the
modelling. The omission of these inputs parameters from
the modelling may not significantly affect the output of the
Gaussian models. Four different cases are considered. The
number of input parameters are reduced from 6 to 3. The
Gaussian models are then trained with the reduced number
of the inputs. The error indices are evaluated for each of the
case to study the sensitivity of the model to the number of
inputs. The inputs parameters that are omitted as selected
based on their correlation with the output. Therefore, in the
first case, Rr, which has the least correlation with bond
strength, is removed. In the second case, the parameters
Rr,fy are removed. For third case, the parameters Rr,db,fy are
omitted while for the fourth case parameters Rr,db,fy,fc. The
error indices are summarized in Table 6. In general, it is
found that the RMSE and R values reduces with the
decrease in the number of input parameters. This is
expected as some of the input parameters that are known to
affect the bond strength have not been used for modelling.
 Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in concrete 659

Table 7 Variation of error indices with the number of data Table 8 Error indices for the validation data set
set in training and testing ERROR INDICES
S. NO MODEL
Number of
Method ME RMSE MAE R ME RMSE MAE R
data points 1. GP 0.011 0.523 0.415 0.973
GP 0.063 0.574 0.464 0.955 2. VHGP 0.015 0.517 0.408 0.974
VHGP 0.075 0.572 0.461 0.955 3. SSGP 0.010 0.514 0.409 0.974
Testing 155,
SSGP 0.064 0.567 0.461 0.956 4. WGP 0.223 1.600 1.219 0.712
Testing 70
WGP 0.217 1.184 0.861 0.791 5. TGP 0.053 0.802 0.630 0.929
TGP 0.265 1.06 0.837 0.864
GP 0.137 0.69 0.551 0.931
VHGP 0.172 0.698 0.556 0.931 5.4 Sensitivity to external data set
Testing 145,
SSGP 0.084 0.67 0.522 0.934
Testing 70 The accuracy of the model is also studied with respect to
WGP 0.203 0.863 0.639 0.892
the external data set. A total of 40 samples which have
TGP 1.174 2.008 1.421 0.701 considered db, Rr, fc, Cmin/db, Atrfy/sndb, ls/db and fy as
GP 0.534 1.146 0.859 0.836 experimental parameters are collected from the literature
VHGP 0.531 1.139 0.857 0.838 and categorized as the validation data set (ACI408R-03
Testing 135, 2012, Golafshani et al. 2014, Cairns 2015). The trained
SSGP 0.287 1.09 0.815 0.823
Testing 70
WGP 2.071 7.073 2.251 -0.192 Gaussian models obtained in Section 3 are used for the
TGP 1.393 2.472 1.775 0.695 prediction of bond strength for the validation data set. The
error indices obtained using different Gaussian models for
GP 0.5 1.479 1.116 0.689
the validation data set are summarized in Table 8. The
VHGP 0.494 1.472 1.113 0.692
Testing 125, comparison between the experiment model results for the
SSGP 0.361 1.555 1.145 0.638 validation data set is given in Fig. 11. Based on the error
Testing 70
WGP 0.246 1.75 1.42 0.378 indices and correlation plots, GP, VHGP and SSGP have
TGP 9.099 11.162 0.4 0.423 comparable performance and are able to provide a good
prediction of the bond strength for validation data set. The
Gaussian models can sometime over-fit the data, especially
GP is found to be least sensitive to the number of input when the number of training data set is small. The over-
parameters. The error indices for WGP are found to not fitting means that the Gaussian models are trying to fit even
follow any trend. Therefore, one needs to be careful while the noise present in the output feature space. However, the
using WGP as the choice of input parameters can drastically case of over-fitting is not observed in the present study. The
effect the results of the model. good performance of the Gaussian models for the external
validation data set implies that there was no over-fitting of
5.3 Sensitivity to sampling the Gaussian models (Note that the error indices for the
validation data set are close to that for the testing data set).
The accuracy of the models also varies with the number For the case where, over-fitting of the models is observed, it
of data points used for the training of the model. Four can be avoided by choosing hyper parameters based on
different cases are considered herein, that is, the total data some prior knowledge. In case no prior knowledge is
set is split for training and testing as 155-70, 145-80, 135- available, the variance of the noise kernel can be increased
90 and 125-100. The error indices evaluated for each of the to avoid over-fitting.
cases are summarized in Table 7. It is observed that as we
decrease the number of training data points, the accuracy of
the models also decreases. Conversely, using more data 6. Conclusions
points for the training of the model results in better
prediction of the bond strength. Among all the Gaussian The development of an adequate model for the
models, GP, VHGP, SSGP are found to be perform prediction of bond strength is one of the active and
comparatively better than WGP and TGP with the less important research problems in structural engineering. In
training data. this paper, Gaussian models are adopted for the bond
In order to have a correlation coefficient more than 0.9, strength evaluation of the ribbed bars embedded in
it is advised to use at least 65% of the total data for the concrete. Gaussian models provide a Bayesian framework
training of the models. The RMSE values are found to with high predictive power. The input feature space
increase by a factor of almost 3 for GP, VHGP and SSGP consisted of bar diameter, relative rib area of the
when the number of training data points are reduced from reinforcement, ratio of minimum cover to bar diameter,
155 to 125. The performance of TGP degrades drastically ratio of splice length to bar diameter, transverse
with the reduction in the training data. The RMSE values reinforcement index, concrete compressive strength and
are found to increase from 1.06 to 11.162 while the R yield strength of the steel bar. The output was bond strength
values are reduced from 0.864 to 0.423 when the training obtained from the rod pull-out tests.
data is reduced from approximately 70% to 55% of the total Following conclusions are drawn from the present study
data set. • Five different Gaussian models were studied-Standard
660 Prabhat R. Prem and Branko Savija

Fig. 8 Distribution of the bond strength obtained from Gaussian models and various codes

Gaussian Process (GP), Variation Heteroscedastic approximation.

Gaussian Process (VHGP), Sparse Spectrum Gaussian
Process (SSGP), Warped Gaussian Process (WGP) and
Twin Gaussian Process (TGP). The performance of the
Gaussian models was assessed in terms of error indices,
residuals, convergence rate and the computational time.
The mean error, root mean square error, mean absolute
error and regression coefficient of this models are found
in the range of 0.266-0.011, 1.611-0.508, 1.239-0.399
and 0.974-0.697, respectively. SSGP was found to have
the least RMSE and residuals compared to other
Gaussian models. The convergence of GP, VHGP and
SSGP was found to be close to each other. TGP is found
to be most computationally efficient. For larger data
sets, SSGP should be preferred as it uses sparse
• The results obtained from the Gaussian models were
also compared with the design formulas given in various
codes. The bond strength model available in
international building codes such Canadian Standard
(CSA), Japanese specifications for design of concrete
structures (JSCE), American Standard (ACI 318), Model
code (CEB-FIB) and Eurocode2 recommendations were
evaluated with the training and testing data sets. From
the comparison, it was found that prediction accuracy of
the experimental data with ACI 318, CSA, EC2, CEB-
FIB and JSCE have mean error, root mean square error,
mean absolute error and regression coefficient in the
range of 0.305-0.041, 1.688-0.932, 0.90-0.731 and
0.628-0.916, respectively. JSCE was found to give the
 Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in concrete 661

Fig. 9 Contour plots for sensitivity of different input parameters

Fig. 10 Surface plots for sensitivity of different input parameters

results closer to the experiments. GP, VHGP, SSGP and
TGP are found to provide better prediction than those
obtained using codal formulas.
• The sensitivity analysis of the models was carried out
in terms of parameters, number of input features and
training sample size. It was discovered that the models
GP, VHGP, and SSGP are capable of capturing the bond
strength’s sensitivity to different input factors The
models performed well even with fewer input variables.
The least sensitive model to the set of input variables
662 Prabhat R. Prem and Branko Savija

(a) GPR (b) VHGP

(c) SSGP (d) WGP

(e) TGP
Fig. 11 Comparison between experiments and model results for the validation data

was determined to be GP. knowledge or by increasing the noise co-variance in the

• The sensitivity of the Gaussian models was also
carried out for the external data set in order to insure
that there was no over-fitting of the data by the models.
The results obtained for the validation data set were
found to be close to those obtained using testing data
set, implying that there was no issue of over-fitting. The
over-fitting of the Gaussian models can be avoided by
choosing hyper parameters based on some prior
modelling.
• It was also found that at least 65% of the total samples
should be used for training in order to have a good
correlation between the prediction and the experiments.
The Gaussian models presented in this paper can be used
as an alternative to avoid costly experiments and complex
physics based modelling for evaluation of bond strength in
reinforced concrete.
 Gaussian models for bond strength evaluation of ribbed steel bars in concrete
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to extend their gratitude to the
anonymous reviewer whose valuable comments have
helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
References
50010-2010, G. (2010), Code for Design of Concrete Structures.
ACI408R-03 (2012), Bond and Development of Straight
Reinforcing Bars in Tension, American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, Michigan, USA.
AS3600 (2018), Concrete Structures, Standards Association of
Australia, North Sydney.
Cairns, J. (2015), “Bond and anchorage of embedded steel
reinforcement in fib Model Code 2010”, Struct. Concrete, 16(1),
45-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201400043.
CEB-FIB (2013), Model Code for Concrete Structures.
Chen, H.J., Huang, C.H. and Kao, Z.Y. (2004), “Experimental
investigation on steel-concrete bond in lightweight and normal
weight concrete”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 17(2), 141-152.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2004.17.2.141.
Chen, H.P. and Nepal, J. (2015), “Stochastic modelling and
lifecycle performance assessment of bond strength of corroded
reinforcement in concrete”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 54(2), 319-336.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.54.2.319.
CSA-A23.3 (2004), Design of Concrete Structures, CSA Standard,
Canadian Standard Association.
Darwin, D., Tholen, M.L., Idun, E.K. and Zuo, J. (1995), “Splice
strength of high relative rib area reinforcing bars”, Technical
Report, University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc.
EC2 (2004), Design of Concrete Structures-Part 1.1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for
Standardization Euro Code 2.
Eligehausen, R., Popov, E.P. and Bertero, V.V. (1982), “Local bond
stress-slip relationships of deformed bars under generalized
excitations”, Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 4, Athens, Greece, 69-80.
Esfahani, M.R. and Kianoush, M.R. (2005), “Development/splice
length of reinforcing bars”, ACI Struct. J., 102(1), 22.
Esfahani, M.R. and Rangan, B.V. (1998), “Bond between normal
strength and high-strength concrete (HSC) and reinforcing bars
in splices in beams”, ACI Struct. J., 95(3), 272-280.
Golafshani, E.M., Rahai, A. and Kebria, S.S.H. (2014),
“Prediction of the bond strength of ribbed steel bars in concrete
based on genetic programming”, Comput. Concrete, 14(3), 327-
345. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2014.14.3.327.
Gu, J.B. and Wang, J.Y. (2022), “Shear behavior of a demountable
bolted connector in steel-UHPC lightweight composite
structures”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 81(5), 551-563.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2022.81.5.551.
Harajli, M. (2004), “Comparison of bond strength of steel bars in
normal-and high-strength concrete”, J. Mater. Civil Eng., 16(4),
365-374. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:4(365).
JSCE (2007), Standard Specification for Concrete Structures:
Design, Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
Kemp, E. and Wilhelm, W. (1979), “Investigation of the
parameters influencing bond cracking”, J. Proc., 76, 47-72.
Lv, X., Yu, Z. and Shan, Z. (2021), “Bond stress-slip model for
rebar-concrete interface under monotonic and cyclic loading”,
Struct., 34, 498-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.07.093.
Moodi, Y., Sohrabi, M.R. and Mousavi, S.R. (2021), “Corrosion
effect of the main rebar and stirrups on the bond strength of RC
beams”, Struct., 32, 1444-1454.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.03.096.
Mousavi, S., Dehestani, M. and Mousavi, K. (2017), “Bond
663
strength and development length of steel bar in unconfined self-
consolidating concrete”, Eng. Struct., 131, 587-598.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.10.029.
Orangun, C.O., Jirsa, J. and Breen, J. (1977), “A reevaulation of
test data on development length and splices”, J. Proc., 74, 114-
122.
Prem, P.R. and Murthy, A.R. (2017), “Acoustic emission
monitoring of reinforced concrete beams subjected to four-
point-bending”, Appl. Acoust., 117, 28-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2016.08.006.
Prem, P.R., Murthy, A.R. and Verma, M. (2018), “Theoretical
modelling and acoustic emission monitoring of RC beams
strengthened with UHPC”, Constr. Build. Mater., 158, 670-682.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.063.
Prem, P.R., Thirumalaiselvi, A. and Verma, M. (2019), “Applied
linear and nonlinear statistical models for evaluating strength of
Geopolymer concrete”, Comput. Concrete, 24(1), 7-17.
https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2019.24.1.007
Prem, P.R., Verma, M. and Ambily, P. (2021a), “Damage
characterization of reinforced concrete beams under different
failure modes using acoustic emission”, Struct., 30, 174-187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.007.
Prem, P.R., Verma, M., Murthy, A.R. and Ambily, P. (2021b),
“Smart monitoring of strengthened beams made of ultrahigh
performance concrete using integrated and nonintegrated
acoustic emission approach”, Struct. Control Hlth. Monit.,
28(5), e2704. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2704.
Rilem, T. (1994), “RILEM recommendations for the testing and
use of constructions materials”, RC, 6, 218-220.
Rockson, C., Tamanna, K., Alam, M.S. and Rteil, A. (2020),
“Effect of cover on bond strength of structural concrete using
commercially produced recycled coarse and fine aggregates”,
Constr. Build. Mater., 255, 119275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119275.
Su, M., Dai, G. and Peng, H. (2020), “Bond-slip constitutive
model of concrete to cement-asphalt mortar interface for slab
track structure”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 74(5), 589-600.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.74.5.589.
Tekle, B.H., Cui, Y. and Khennane, A. (2020), “Bond properties of
steel and sand-coated GFRP bars in Alkali activated cement
concrete”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 75(1), 123-131.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.75.1.123.
Tepfers, R. (1973), “A theory of bond applied to overlapped tensile
reinforcement splices for deformed bars”, Division of Concrete
Structures, Chalmers University of Technology.
Thirumalaiselvi, A., Verma, M., Anandavalli, N. and Rajasankar, J.
(2018), “Response prediction of laced steel-concrete composite
beams using machine learning algorithms”, Struct. Eng. Mech.,
66(3), 399-409. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.66.3.399.
Verma, M., Thirumalaiselvi, A. and Rajasankar, J. (2017),
“Kernel-based models for prediction of cement compressive
strength”, Neur. Comput. Appl., 28(1), 1083-1100.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2419-0.
Wu, Y.F. and Zhao, X.M. (2013), “Unified bond stress-slip model
for reinforced concrete”, J. Struct. Eng., 139(11), 1951-1962.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000747.
Xu, Y. (1990), “Experimental study of anchorage properties for
deformed bars in concrete”, Tsinghua, Beijing.
Zhou, H., Liang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, X. and Xing, F. (2017),
“Bond deterioration of corroded steel in two different concrete
mixes”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 63(6), 725-734.
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2017.63.6.725.
Zuo, J. and Darwin, D. (2000), “Splice strength of conventional
and high relative rib area bars in normal and high-strength
concrete”, ACI Struct. J., 97(4), 630-641.
PL
664 Prabhat R. Prem and Branko Savija

Nomenclature confinement
𝜂𝑖 : concrete quality and rebar coefficients
𝑎 : hyperparameter for step size 𝜀 : constant power Gaussian noise
𝑎𝑟 , 𝑏𝑟 : amplitude parameters 𝜎2 : noise power
𝐴𝑏 : area considering single ribbed longitudinal bar 𝑣 : allowable covariance (signal power)
𝐴𝑠𝑡 : area considering all legs of the stirrups 𝛿 : Kroenke delta function
𝐴𝑠𝑡1 : area of stirrups considering one leg 𝜎𝑓 : length-scale for the input feature space
: area of individual stirrups passing potential 𝜎𝑛 : noise standard deviation
𝐴𝑡𝑟
zone of splitting failure in steel bar
𝐴𝑡𝑟 𝑓𝑦 ⁄𝑠𝑛𝑑𝑏 : transverse reinforcement index
𝑏 : hyper parameter for steepness
𝑐 : hyper parameter for position
𝑐𝑏 : bottom concrete cover
𝑐𝑠𝑖 :1/2 of the clear spacing between bars
𝑐𝑠𝑜 : side concrete cover
𝑐𝑠 : min (𝑐𝑠𝑜 ; 𝑐𝑠𝑖 + 6:35 mm)
𝑐min : min (𝑐𝑏 ; 𝑐𝑠 )
𝑐max : max (𝑐𝑏 ; 𝑐𝑠 )
𝑐𝑚𝑒𝑑 : average concrete cover
𝑐𝑠𝑘 : 2/3 of the gap between ribbed bars
𝑑𝑏 : diameter of ribbed bar
𝑑𝑐𝑠 : min (𝑐𝑠𝑜 + 0:5𝑑𝑏 ; 𝑐𝑏 + 0:5𝑑𝑏 ; 𝑐𝑠𝑘 )
𝐸 : Expectation
𝑓(𝑥) : latent function of the inputs
𝑓𝑐 : concrete compressive strength
𝑓𝑦 : yield strength of the spliced reinforcement
𝑓𝑦𝑡 : yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
: monotonic mapping function for WGP
𝑔(. , 𝜓)
parameterized by scalar inputs
𝑘(. ) : covariance or kernel function
: coefficients for bar location, coating, concrete
𝑘𝑖
density and rebar size
𝑘𝑚 : connement efficiency
𝑘𝑡𝑟 : stirrup index of connement
𝐾𝑓𝑓 : covariance matrix
𝐾𝐿 : Kullback-Leibler divergence
: number of basis function used for the
𝐿
parameterization of function g
𝑙𝑠 : splice length
𝑙𝑏 : bond length
𝑚 : count of basic functions
𝑛 : count of tension bars confined with stirrups
: count of transverse stirrups confined within
𝑁
the bond length
𝑝𝑠(𝑠) : probability measure
𝑞(. ) : variational density
𝑅𝑟 : relative rib area of the steel
𝑠𝑟 : spectral frequency vector
𝑆(𝑠) : power spectrum in frequency domain
𝑠𝑟 : spectral frequencies
𝑠 : gap between the transverse reinforcement
𝑠𝑖 : slip
𝑢𝑏 : bond strength
𝑥 : observed input
𝑥∗ : forecast input
𝑦 : observed output
𝑦∗ : forecast output
𝑧𝑖 : latent space for WGP
𝛼𝑖 : coefficients for bar shape, concrete cover and