4.6 Article

Multifunctional Models, Including an Artificial Neural Network, to Predict the Compressive Strength of Self-Compacting Concrete

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 12, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app12168161

关键词

SCC; compressive strength; fly ash; statistical analysis; modeling

资金

  1. College of Engineering, the University of Sulaimani

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, three different models were developed to predict the compressive strength of SCC. A set of 400 data was collected and analyzed to evaluate the effect of seven variables on CS. The results showed that the artificial neural network model performed the best in terms of prediction performance and curing time had the greatest impact on the forecast for FA-modified SCC.
In this study, three different models were developed to predict the compressive strength of SCC, including the nonlinear relationship (NLR) model, multiregression model (MLR), and artificial neural network. Thus, a set of 400 data were collected and analyzed to evaluate the effect of seven variables that have a direct impact on the CS, such as water to cement ratio (w/c), cement content (C, kg/m(3)), gravel content (G, kg/m(3)), sand content (S, kg/m(3)), fly ash content, (FA, kg/m(3)), superplasticizer content (SP, kg/m(3)), and curing time (t, days) up to 365 days. Several statistical assessment parameters, such as the coefficient of determination (R-2), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and scatter index (SI), were used to assess the performance of the predicted models. Depending on the statistical analysis, the median percentage of superplasticizers for the production of SCC was 1.33%. Furthermore, the percentage of fly ash inside all mixes ranged from 0 to 100%, with 1 to 365 days of curing and sand content ranging from 845 to 1066 kg/m(3). The results indicated that ANN performed better than other models with the lowest SI values. Curing time has the most impact on forecasts for the CS of SCC modified with FA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据