Abstract
In this study, a new computational approach for determination of the bond strength of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) strip-to-concrete joints is presented based on adaptive neuro–fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). For this purpose, 150 experimental data were gathered from the literature. The number of 120 data was used to train the system, and the other 30 were applied to the test. Six parameters including the compressive strength of the concrete, width of the concrete prism, FRP thickness, FRP modulus of elasticity, FRP bond length and FRP width were utilized to determine the bond strength. The results of the proposed ANFIS show high accuracy in the model. A comparison study with other published equations was also done, and it was concluded that ANFIS had less error and also had better results in comparison with other existing methods. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was done to investigate the relative importance of each input parameter on the target.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Naderpour H, Mirrashid M (2015) Application of soft computing to reinforced concrete beams strengthened with fibre reinforced polymers: a state-of-the-art review. Computational techniques for civil and structural engineering, vol 38. Saxe-Coburg Publications, Stirlingshire, pp 305–323
Li L, Guo Y, Liu F (2008) Test analysis for FRC beams strengthened with externally bonded FRP sheets. Constr Build Mater 22(3):315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.016
Maalej M, Goh W, Paramasivam P (2001) Analysis and design of FRP externally-reinforced concrete beams against debonding-type failures. Mater Struct 34(7):418–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02482288
Gunes O, Buyukozturk O, Karaca E (2009) A fracture-based model for FRP de-bonding in strengthened beams. Eng Fract Mech 76(12):1897–1909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.04.011
Patel MR, Tank TG, Vasanwala SA, Modhera CD (2015) Assessment of debonding load for RC beam strengthened with pre-designed CFRP strip mechanism. In: Matsagar V (ed) Advances in structural engineering. Springer, New Delhi, pp 1971–1985
Toutanji H, Ortiz G (2001) The effect of surface preparation on the bond interface between FRP sheets and concrete members. Compos Struct 53(4):457–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(01)00057-5
Chen JF, Teng J (2001) Anchorage strength models for FRP and steel plates bonded to concrete. J Struct Eng 127(7):784–791. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:7(784)
Lu X, Teng J, Ye L, Jiang J (2005) Bond–slip models for FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete. Eng Struct 27(6):920–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.01.014
Diab HM, Farghal OA (2014) Bond strength and effective bond length of FRP sheets/plates bonded to concrete considering the type of adhesive layer. Compos Part B 58:618–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.10.075
Niu H, Wu Z (2006) Effects of FRP–concrete interface bond properties on the performance of RC beams strengthened in flexure with externally bonded FRP sheets. J Mater Civil Eng 18(5):723–731. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2006)18:5(723)
Sharma S, Ali MM, Goldar D, Sikdar P (2006) Plate–concrete interfacial bond strength of FRP and metallic plated concrete specimens. Compos Part B 37(1):54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2005.05.011
Ko H, Sato Y (2007) Bond stress–slip relationship between FRP sheet and concrete under cyclic load. J Compos Constr 11(4):419–426. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:4(419)
Dai J, Ueda T, Sato Y (2007) Bonding characteristics of fibre-reinforced polymer sheet–concrete interfaces under dowel load. J Compos Constr 11(2):138–148. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(138)
Seracino R, Jones NM, Ali M, Page MW, Oehlers DJ (2007) Bond strength of near-surface mounted FRP strip-to-concrete joints. J Compos Constr 11(4):401–409. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:4(401)
Wu Z, Islam S, Said H (2009) A three-parameter bond strength model for FRP–concrete interface. J Reinf Plast Compos 28(19):2309–2323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684408091961
Wu Y, Zhou Z, Yang Q, Chen W (2010) On shear bond strength of FRP–concrete structures. Eng Struct 32(3):897–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.017
Wang F, Li M, Hu S (2014) Bond behavior of roughing FRP sheet bonded to concrete substrate. Constr Build Mater 73:145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.057
Tong GS, Chen SS (2014) Prediction bond strength between FRP and concrete interface by LEFM method. In: Advanced materials research, vol 988. Trans Tech Publications, pp 195–200
Abbass MM, Matsagar V, Nagpal A (2015) Bond-slip response of FRP sheets or plates bonded to reinforced concrete beam under dynamic loading. In: Matsagar V (ed) Advances in structural engineering. Springer, New Delhi, pp 1959–1969
Woo S-K, Lee Y (2010) Experimental study on interfacial behavior of CFRP-bonded concrete. KSCE J Civil Eng 14(3):385–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-010-0385-0
Zhou Y-W, Wu Y-F, Yun Y (2010) Analytical modeling of the bond–slip relationship at FRP–concrete interfaces for adhesively-bonded joints. Compos Part B Eng 41(6):423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2010.06.004
Pan J, Xu Z, Leung C, Li Z (2012) Analytical and numerical modelling of FRP debonding from concrete substrate under pure shearing. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed 27(1):142–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11595-012-0425-3
Huang JL, Huang PY, Li ZW, Zheng XH (2011) Prediction of bond strength of FRP–concrete based on multiple linear regression method. In: Advanced materials research, vol 163. Trans Tech Publications, pp 3623–3628
Bhatti AQ, Kishi N (2012) Control of FRP debonding in strengthened RC beams. Arab J Sci Eng 37(8):2103–2112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-012-0304-4
Naderpour H, Mirrashid M (2017) Compressive strength of mortars admixed with wollastonite and microsilica. Mater Sci Forum 890:415–418. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.890.415
Naderpour H, Mirrashid M (2018) An innovative approach for compressive strength estimation of mortars having calcium inosilicate minerals. J Build Eng 19:205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.012
Mashrei MA, Seracino R, Rahman M (2013) Application of artificial neural networks to predict the bond strength of FRP-to-concrete joints. Constr Build Mater 40:812–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.109
Wu Y-F, Jiang C (2013) Quantification of bond–slip relationship for externally bonded FRP-to-concrete joints. J Compos Constr 17(5):673–686. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000375
Abdellahi M, Heidari J, Bahmanpour M (2014) A new predictive model for the bond strength of FRP-to-concrete composite joints. Struct Concr 15(4):509–521
Shen D, Shi H, Ji Y, Yin F (2015) Strain rate effect on effective bond length of basalt FRP sheet bonded to concrete. Constr Build Mater 82:206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.016
Biscaia HC, Chastre C, Silva MA (2015) bond–slip model for FRP-to-concrete bonded joints under external compression. Compos Part B Eng 80:246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.06.004
Shen D, Ji Y, Yin F, Zhang J (2015) Dynamic bond stress–slip relationship between basalt FRP sheet and concrete under initial static loading. J Compos Constr 19(6):04015012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000568
Colotti V (2016) Effectiveness factors for bond strength in FRP shear-strengthened RC beams. Mater Struct 49(12):5031–5049. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0842-4
Irshidat MR, Al-Saleh MH (2016) Effect of using carbon nanotube modified epoxy on bond–slip behavior between concrete and FRP sheets. Constr Build Mater 105:511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.183
Mohamed OA, Khattab R (2016) Bond–slip modelling of FRP sheets externally bonded to concrete beam. Procedia Eng 161:833–838
Gusheng T, Songtao X (2016) The multiple nonlinear regression to predict the bond strength of FRP-to-concrete joints. Paper presented at the international conference on materials, energy and environment, China,
Nauck D, Klawonn F, Kruse R (1997) Foundations of neuro–fuzzy systems. Wiley, New York
Naderpour H, Mirrashid M (2019) Shear failure capacity prediction of concrete beam–column joints in terms of ANFIS and GMDH. Pract Period Struct Design Constr. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000417
Naderpour H, Mirrashid M (2018) Shear strength prediction of RC beams using adaptive neuro–fuzzy inference system. Sci Iran. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2018.50308.1624
Jang J-S (1993) ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 23(3):665–685. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.256541
Chajes MJ, Finch WW, Januszka TF, Thomson TA (1996) Bond and force transfer of composite material plates bonded to concrete. ACI Struct J 93(2):208–217
Takeo K, Matsushita H, Makizumi T, Nagashima G (1997) Bond characteristics of CFRP sheets in the CFRP bonding technique. Proc Jpn Concr Inst 19(2):1599–1604
Zhao H, Zhang Y, Zhao M (2000) Research on the bond performance between CFRP plate and concrete. In: Proc. 1st Conf. on FRP concrete structures of China, pp 247–253
Ren H (2003) Study on basic theories and long time behavior of concrete structures strengthened by fibre reinforced polymers. Graduation thesis, Dalian Univ of Technology, Dalian, China (in Chinese)
Yao J, Teng J, Chen JF (2005) Experimental study on FRP-to-concrete bonded joints. Compos Part B Eng 36(2):99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.06.001
Toutanji H, Saxena P, Zhao L, Ooi T (2007) Prediction of interfacial bond failure of FRP–concrete surface. J Compos Constr 11(4):427–436. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:4(427)
Mirrashid M (2014) Earthquake magnitude prediction by adaptive neuro–fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) based on fuzzy C-means algorithm. Nat Hazards 74(3):1577–1593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1264-7
Bezdek JC, Ehrlich R, Full W (1984) FCM: The fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. Comput Geosci 10(2–3):191–203
Dai J, Ueda T, Sato Y (2005) Development of the nonlinear bond stress–slip model of fibre reinforced plastics sheet–concrete interfaces with a simple method. J Compos Constr 9(1):52–62. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2005)9:1(52)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors do not have any conflict of interests.
Data availability
The processed data required to reproduce these findings are available in the body of the article.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
\(b_{c}\)(mm) | \(f_{\text{c}}^{\prime }\) (MPa) | \(b_{\text{f}}\) (mm) | \(t_{\text{f}}\) (mm) | \(E_{\text{f}}\) (GPa) | L (mm) | \(P_{\text{u}}\) (kN) | Using type | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chajes et al. [3] | 228.2 | 36.1 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 76.2 | 8.46 | Train |
228.2 | 47.1 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 76.2 | 10.4 | Test | |
228.2 | 43.6 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 76.2 | 10.62 | Test | |
228.2 | 24.1 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 76.2 | 9.87 | Test | |
228.2 | 28.9 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 76.2 | 9.34 | Train | |
228.2 | 36.4 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 50.8 | 8.09 | Train | |
228.2 | 36.4 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 101.6 | 12.81 | Train | |
152.4 | 36.4 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 152.4 | 11.92 | Train | |
152.4 | 36.4 | 25.4 | 1.02 | 106 | 203.2 | 11.57 | Train | |
Takeo et al. [4] | 100 | 28.88 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 100 | 8.75 | Train |
100 | 26.66 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 100 | 8.85 | Test | |
100 | 28.88 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 200 | 9.30 | Train | |
100 | 26.66 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 200 | 8.50 | Train | |
100 | 28.88 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 300 | 9.30 | Train | |
100 | 26.66 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 300 | 8.30 | Train | |
100 | 24.99 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 100 | 8.80 | Train | |
100 | 26.17 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 100 | 8.41 | Train | |
100 | 24.4 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 100 | 7.89 | Train | |
100 | 24.99 | 40 | 0.33 | 230 | 100 | 11.4 | Test | |
100 | 24.99 | 40 | 0.5 | 230 | 100 | 13.5 | Test | |
100 | 24.4 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 100 | 11.23 | Train | |
100 | 49.97 | 40 | 0.17 | 230 | 100 | 7.9 | Train | |
100 | 24.99 | 40 | 0.11 | 230 | 100 | 7.7 | Test | |
100 | 26.17 | 40 | 0.11 | 230 | 100 | 6.95 | Train | |
Zhao et al. [5] | 150 | 16 | 100 | 0.08 | 240 | 100 | 11.0 | Train |
150 | 16 | 100 | 0.08 | 240 | 150 | 11.25 | Train | |
150 | 28.63 | 100 | 0.08 | 240 | 100 | 12.5 | Train | |
150 | 28.63 | 100 | 0.08 | 240 | 150 | 12.5 | Train | |
Ren [6] | 150 | 22.39 | 20 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 5.81 | Train |
150 | 22.39 | 50 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 10.6 | Train | |
150 | 22.39 | 80 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 18.23 | Test | |
150 | 35.33 | 20 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 100 | 4.63 | Test | |
150 | 35.33 | 20 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 5.77 | Train | |
150 | 35.33 | 50 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 60 | 9.42 | Train | |
150 | 35.33 | 50 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 100 | 11.03 | Train | |
150 | 35.33 | 50 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 11.8 | Train | |
150 | 35.33 | 80 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 100 | 14.65 | Train | |
150 | 35.33 | 80 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 16.44 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 20 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 100 | 5.99 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 20 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 5.9 | Test | |
150 | 43.29 | 50 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 100 | 9.84 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 50 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 12.28 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 80 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 100 | 14.02 | Test | |
150 | 43.29 | 80 | 0.51 | 83.03 | 150 | 16.71 | Test | |
150 | 22.39 | 20 | 0.33 | 207 | 150 | 5.48 | Train | |
150 | 22.39 | 50 | 0.33 | 207 | 150 | 10.02 | Train | |
150 | 22.39 | 80 | 0.33 | 207 | 150 | 19.27 | Train | |
150 | 35.33 | 20 | 0.33 | 207 | 100 | 5.54 | Test | |
150 | 35.33 | 20 | 0.33 | 207 | 150 | 4.61 | Train | |
150 | 35.33 | 50 | 0.33 | 207 | 100 | 11.08 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 20 | 0.33 | 207 | 100 | 5.78 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 50 | 0.33 | 207 | 100 | 12.95 | Test | |
150 | 43.29 | 50 | 0.33 | 207 | 150 | 16.72 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 80 | 0.33 | 207 | 100 | 16.24 | Train | |
150 | 43.29 | 80 | 0.33 | 207 | 150 | 22.8 | Train | |
Yao et al. [7] | 150 | 23 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 75 | 5.24 | Train |
150 | 23 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 85 | 5.85 | Train | |
150 | 23 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 6 | Train | |
150 | 23 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 115 | 6.08 | Train | |
150 | 23 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 145 | 6.11 | Test | |
150 | 23 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 190 | 6.69 | Train | |
150 | 27.1 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 100 | 5.94 | Train | |
150 | 27.1 | 50 | 0.17 | 256 | 100 | 11.66 | Train | |
150 | 27.1 | 75 | 0.17 | 256 | 100 | 14.63 | Train | |
150 | 27.1 | 100 | 0.17 | 256 | 100 | 19.07 | Train | |
150 | 18.9 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 5.64 | Train | |
150 | 19.8 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 6.10 | Train | |
150 | 21.1 | 15 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 4.11 | Train | |
150 | 21.1 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 6.26 | Train | |
150 | 21.1 | 50 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 12.22 | Train | |
150 | 21.1 | 75 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 14.29 | Train | |
150 | 21.1 | 100 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 15.58 | Train | |
150 | 24.9 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 95 | 6.71 | Train | |
150 | 24.9 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 145 | 6.91 | Train | |
150 | 24.9 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 190 | 7.26 | Train | |
150 | 24.9 | 25 | 0.17 | 256 | 240 | 6.7 | Test | |
Sharma et al. [8] | 100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 165 | 100 | 18.25 | Train |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 165 | 130 | 24.5 | Train | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 165 | 150 | 28.44 | Test | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 165 | 175 | 32.00 | Test | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 165 | 200 | 34.22 | Train | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 165 | 250 | 33.14 | Train | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 165 | 300 | 34.24 | Train | |
100 | 35.8 | 50 | 1.2 | 210 | 150 | 30.40 | Test | |
100 | 35.8 | 50 | 1.2 | 210 | 180 | 34 | Train | |
100 | 35.8 | 50 | 1.2 | 210 | 190 | 36 | Train | |
100 | 35.8 | 50 | 1.2 | 210 | 200 | 36.02 | Test | |
100 | 35.8 | 50 | 1.2 | 210 | 230 | 37.02 | Train | |
100 | 35.8 | 50 | 1.2 | 210 | 255 | 36.8 | Train | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 300 | 160 | 38.02 | Train | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 300 | 180 | 41.15 | Train | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 300 | 200 | 46.35 | Train | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 300 | 250 | 45.5 | Test | |
100 | 29.7 | 50 | 1.2 | 300 | 300 | 45.95 | Test | |
Toutanji et al. [9] | 200 | 17 | 50 | 0.42 | 110 | 100 | 7.56 | Train |
200 | 17 | 50 | 0.66 | 110 | 100 | 9.29 | Train | |
Woo and Yun [10] | 200 | 30 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 5.15 | Test |
200 | 30 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 7.55 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 7.7 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 7.9 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 6.25 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 7.58 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 5.1 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 6.85 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 6.35 | Test | |
200 | 40 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 6.95 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 6.8 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 6.4 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 4.55 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 7.1 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 7.78 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 7.65 | Test | |
200 | 50 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 6.8 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 10 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 7.25 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 9.3 | Test | |
200 | 30 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 16.25 | Test | |
200 | 30 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 16.2 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 22.1 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 15.6 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 15.85 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 9.15 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 14.9 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 16.05 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 16.15 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 16.11 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 16.9 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 9.2 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 17.8 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 15.22 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 18.5 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 19 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 30 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 17.73 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 13.3 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 26 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 27.8 | Test | |
200 | 30 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 27.2 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 24.84 | Train | |
200 | 30 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 23 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 10.7 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 24.5 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 27.45 | Test | |
200 | 40 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 19.3 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 21.9 | Train | |
200 | 40 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 27.3 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 50 | 10.8 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 100 | 16 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 150 | 21.25 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 200 | 25 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 250 | 24.9 | Train | |
200 | 50 | 50 | 1.4 | 152.2 | 300 | 34 | Test |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Naderpour, H., Mirrashid, M. & Nagai, K. An innovative approach for bond strength modeling in FRP strip-to-concrete joints using adaptive neuro–fuzzy inference system. Engineering with Computers 36, 1083–1100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00751-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00751-y