4.7 Article

Appraisal of long-term effects of fly ash and silica fume on compressive strength of concrete by neural networks

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 384-394

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.009

关键词

fly ash; silica fume; long-term cured concrete; neural networks; compressive strength; scaled conjugate gradient algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on studying the effects of fly ash and silica fume replacement content on the strength of concrete cured for a long-term period of time by neural networks (NNs). Applicability of NNs to evaluate the effects of FA and SF for a long period of time is investigated. The investigations covered concrete mixes at different water cementitious materials ratio, which contained low and high volumes of FA, and with or without the additional small amount of SF. 24 different mixes with 144 different samples were gathered form the literature for this purpose. These samples consist concretes that were cured for 3, 7, 28, 56 and 180 days. A NN model is constructed trained and tested using these data. The data used in the NN model are arranged in a format of eight input parameters that cover the fly ash replacement ratio (FA), silica fume replacement ratio (SF), total cementitious material (TCM), fine aggregate (ssa), coarse aggregate (ca), water content (W), high rate water reducing agent (HRWRA) and age of samples (AS) and an output parameter which is compressive strength of concrete (f(c)). A NN program was devised in MATLAB and the NN model was constructed in this program. The results showed that NNs have strong potential as a feasible tool for evaluation of the effect of cementitious material on the compressive strength of concrete. It was found that FA content contributed little at early ages but much at later ages to the strength of concrete. It can also be concluded that the enhancement effect of low content of SF on compressive strength was not significant. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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