4.5 Article

Optimization of Geometrical Features of a Vane Concrete Rheometer Using Genetic Algorithm

Journal

ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Volume 46, Issue 11, Pages 11279-11290

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13369-021-05781-7

Keywords

Concrete rheometer; Concrete rheology; Yield stress; Plastic viscosity; Optimization; Genetic algorithm

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the dimensions of impeller and cylindrical container of rotational concrete rheometers have been optimized using genetic algorithm in MATLAB environment. The optimal dimensions of impeller and cylindrical container were determined, and the calculated optimum concrete volume for testing was found to be 12.3 L. Experimental investigations were conducted to validate the optimization results.
Dimensions of impellers and cylindrical containers of available rotational concrete rheometers vary considerably. Consequently, the volume of fresh concrete to be tested varies from rheometer to rheometer. In some rheometer, volume is 7.0 L and in some case, it is as high as 500 L. Till date, no attempt has been made so far to arrive at optimum geometrical features of rotational concrete rheometers. Attempt has therefore been made in the present study to optimize the dimensions of impeller with vane geometry and cylindrical container so as to have minimum concrete volume and minimum torque. To serve the goal of optimization, genetic algorithm implemented in MATLAB environment is adopted. It is observed that optimum dimensions of impeller are 100 mm diameter x 100 mm height. For cylindrical container, optimum dimensions are found to be 250 mm diameter x 250 mm height. Calculated optimum concrete volume to be tested is found to be 12.3 L. With thus obtained optimized geometry of vane impeller and cylindrical container, experimental investigations were undertaken to validate the optimization results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available