Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative modeling study to estimate wear of concrete

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the impacts of fuzzy genetic (FG), a new fuzzy logic model with genetic algorithm, artificial neural networks (ANN) and general linear model (GLM) approaches on abrasive wear of concrete. For this purpose, experimental studies were made to investigate the influence on wear of the following input parameters: hematite, cement, compressive strength and different loads on the experiments. In these models, 60 data sets were used. For training set, 48 data (80 %) were randomly selected and the residual data (12 data, 20 %) were test set. Model results were compared with experimental results. In this paper, main model performance criterion was root mean square errors. Also, sum of squared error and determination coefficient statistics were used as comparing criteria for the evaluation of models’ performances. Comparison results indicate that FG models are superior to ANN and GLM models in modeling of influence hematite, cement, compressive strength and loads on wear of concrete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hui L, Zhang MH, Ou JP (2006) Abrasion resistance of concrete containing nano-particles for pavement. Wear 260:1262–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sebok T, Stranel O (2004) Wear resistance of polymer-impregnated mortars and concrete. Cem Concr Res 34:1853–1858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brostow W, Hagg HE (2008) Predicting wear from mechanical properties of thermoplastic polymers. Polym Eng Sci 48:1982–1985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gyurova LA, Justel PM, Schlarb AK (2010) Modeling the sliding wear and friction properties of polyphenylene sulfide composites using artificial neural networks. Wear 268:708–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Naik TR, Singh SS, Hossain MM (1994) Abrasion resistance of concrete as influenced by inclusion of fly ash. Cem Concr Res 24(2):303–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atis CD (2002) High volume fly ash abrasion resistant concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 14(3):274–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang Z, Friedrich K (2003) Artificial neural networks applied to polymer composites: a review. Compos Sci Technol 63:2029–2044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jiang Z, Zhang Z, Friedrich K (2007) Prediction on wear properties of polymer composites with artificial neural networks. Compos Sci Technol 67:168–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang Z, Friedrich K, Velten K (2002) Prediction on tribological properties of short fibre composites using artificial neural networks. Wear 252:668–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Demir F (2005) A new way of prediction elastic modulus of normal and high strength concrete-fuzzy logic. Cem Concr Res 35(8):1531–1538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Unal O, Demir F, Uygunoglu T (2007) Fuzzy logic approach to predict stress-strain curves of steel fiber-reinforced concretes in compressive. Build Environ 42(10):3589–3595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tanyildizi H (2009) Fuzzy logic model for the prediction of bond strength of high-strength lightweight concrete. Adv Eng Softw 40(3):161–169

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Catallo L (2003) Reliability structural assessment of concrete structures using genetic algorithms and nonlinear analysis. Comput Fluid Solid Mech 2003:2237–2240

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chul-Hyun L, Young-Soo Y, Joong-Hoon K (2004) Genetic algorithm in mix proportioning of high-performance concrete. Cem Concr Res 34(3):409–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fairbairn EMR, Silvoso MM, Filho RDT, Alves JLD, Ebecken NFF (2004) Optimization of mass concrete construction using genetic algorithms. Comput Struct 82(2–3):281–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Konstantin S, Amirjanov A (2010) Application of genetic algorithm for modeling of dense packing of concrete aggregates. Constr Build Mater 24(8):1449–1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Naso D, Surico M, Turchiano B, Kaymak U (2007) Genetic algorithms for supply-chain scheduling: a case study in the distribution of ready-mixed concrete. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):2069–2099

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Coello CC, Hernandez FS, Farrera FA (1997) Optimal design of reinforced concrete beam using genetic algorithms. Expert Syst Appl 12(1):101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. PrendesGero MB, Bello García A, del Coz Díaz JJ (2005) A modified elitist genetic algorithm applied to the design optimization of complex steel structures. J Constr Steel Res 61(2):265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. PrendesGero MB, Bello García A, del Coz Díaz JJ (2006) Design optimization of 3D steel structures: genetic algorithms vs. classical techniques. J Constr Steel Res 62(12):1303–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Altun F, Kisi O, Aydin K (2008) Predicting the compressive strength of steel fiber added lightweight concrete using neural network. Comput Mater Sci 42:259–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yeh IC (1999) Design of high-performance concrete mixture using neural networks and nonlinear programming. J Comput Civil Eng 13:36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Oh JW (1999) Application of neural networks for proportioning of concrete mixes. ACI Mater J 96:61–67

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ji T (2006) A mortar mix proportion design algorithm based on artificial neural networks. Comput Concr 3:357–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ji T, Lin T, Lin X (2006) A concrete mix proportion design algorithm based on artificial neural networks. Cem Concr Res 36:1399–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Oztas A, Pala M, Ozbay E, Kanca E, Caglar N, Bhatti MA (2006) Predicting the compressive strength and slump of high strength concrete using neural network. Constr Build Mater 20(9):769–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yeh IC (2007) Modeling slump flow of concrete using second-order regressions and artificial neural networks. Cem Concr Compos 29:474–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yeh IC (2008) Modeling slump of concrete with fly ash and superplasticizer. Comput Concr 5(6):559–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yeh IC (2008) Prediction of workability of concrete using design of experiments for mixtures. Comput Concr 5(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Demir F (2008) Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high strength concrete by artificial neural networks. Constr Build Mater 22:1428–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bilgehan M, Turgut P (2010) Artificial neural network approach to predict compressive strength of concrete through ultrasonic pulse velocity. Res Nondestr Eval 21:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bilgehan M, Turgut P (2010) The use of neural networks in concrete compressive strength estimation. Comput Concr 7(3):271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee SC (2003) Prediction of concrete strength using artificial neural networks. Eng Struct 25:849–857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mukherjee A, Biswas SN (1997) Artificial neural networks in prediction of mechanical behavior of concrete at high temperature. Nucl Eng Des 178:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaplan MF (1989) Concrete radiation shielding. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. ASTM C127 (2007) Standard test method for density, relative density (specific gravity), and absorption of coarse aggregate, ASTM annual book of ASTM standards

  37. ASTM C128 (2007) Standard test method for density, relative density (specific gravity), and absorption of fine aggregate, ASTM annual book of ASTM standards

  38. ASTM C29 (2007) Standard test method for bulk density (unit weight) and voids in aggregate, annual book of ASTM standards

  39. ASTM C511 (2006) Standard specification for mixing rooms, moist cabinets, moist rooms, and water storage tanks used in the testing of hydraulic cements and concretes, annual book of ASTM standards

  40. ASTM C39 (2009) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, annual book of ASTM standards

  41. TS 699 (2009) Natural building stones—methods of inspection and laboratory testing. Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara, in Turkish

  42. ASTM C779 (2000) Standard test method for abrasion resistance of horizontal concrete surfaces, annual book of ASTM standards

  43. Yazıcı S, Inan G (2006) An investigation on the wear resistance of high strength concretes. Wear 260:615–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Arslan M (2001) The effects of permeable formworks with sucker liners on the physical properties of concrete surfaces. Constr Build Mater 15:149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Kosko B (1993) Fuzzy thinking: the new science of fuzzy logic. Hyperion, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ross TJ (1995) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Russell SO, Campbell PF (1996) Reservoir operating rules with fuzzy programming. J Water Resour Plann Manage 122(3):165–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sen Z (1998) Fuzzy algorithm for estimation of solar irradiation from sunshine duration”. Sol Energy 63(1):39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kiszka JB, Kochanskia ME, Sliwinska DS (1985) The influence of some fuzzy implication operators on the accuracy of fuzzy model. Part I Fuzzy Sets Syst 15:111–128

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Kiszka JB, Kochanskia ME, Sliwinska DS (1985) The influence of some fuzzy implication operators on the accuracy of fuzzy model. Part II Fuzzy Sets Syst 15:223–240

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Kisi O (2010) Fuzzy genetic approach for modeling reference evapotranspiration. J Irrig Drain E-ASCE 136(3):175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Burn DH, Yulianti JS (2001) Waste-load allocation using genetic algorithms. J Water Resour Plann Manage 127(2):121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ahmed JA, Sarma AK (2005) Genetic algorithm for optimal operating policy of a multipurpose reservoir”. Water Resour Manage 19:145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang QJ (1991) The genetic algorithm and its application to calibrating conceptual rainfall-runoff models. WaterResour Res 27(9):2467–2471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Goldberg DE, Deb K (1990) A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms, foundation of genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, pp 69–93

  57. Oliveira R, Loucks DP (1997) Operating rules for multireservoir systems. Water Resour Res 33(4):839–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search: optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Haykin S (1998) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cigizoglu HK, Kisi O (2005) Flow prediction by three back propagation techniques using k-fold partitioning of neural network training data. Nord Hydrol 36(1):49–64

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hagan MT, Menhaj M (1994) Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(6):989–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kocabas F, Kisi O, Ardıclioglu M (2009) An artificial neural network model for prediction of critical submergence for an intake in a stratified fluid media. Civ Eng Environ Syst 26(4):367–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. More JJ (1997) Lecture notes in mathematics. The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm: implementation and theory. In: Watson GA (ed) Numerical analysis. Springer, pp 630:105–116

  64. Kocabas F, Unal S, Unal B (2008) A neural network approach for prediction of critical submergence of an intake in still water and open channel flow for permeable and impermeable bottom. Comput Fluids 37:1040–1046

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Gencel O (2009) The application of artificial neural networks technique to estimate mass attenuation coefficient of shielding barrier. Int J Phys Sci 4(12):743–751

    Google Scholar 

  66. SPSS Inc, SPSS Base 12.0 user’s guide, Chicago, IL USA, 2003

  67. Tasdemir Y, Agar E (2007) Investigation of the low temperature performances of polymer and fiber modified asphalt mixtures. Indian J Eng Mater Sci 14:151–157

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kocabas F, Unal S (2010) Compared techniques for the critical submergence of an intake in water flow. Adv Eng Softw 41(5):802–809

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Keskin ME, Terzi O, Taylan D (2004) Fuzzy logic model approaches to daily pan evaporation estimation in western Turkey. Hydrol Sci J 49(6):1001–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. MATLAB (ver 7.0). The MathWorks Inc., 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick (MA)

  71. Dawson WC, Wilby R (1998) An artificial neural network approach to rainfall-runoff modelling. Hydrol Sci J 43(1):47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bartin University, 74100, Bartin, Turkey

    Osman Gencel & Fikret Kocabas

  2. Department of Construction, University of Oviedo, 33204, Gijón, Spain

    Juan Jose del Coz Diaz

Authors
  1. Osman Gencel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fikret Kocabas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Jose del Coz Diaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osman Gencel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gencel, O., Kocabas, F. & Coz Diaz, J.J.d. A comparative modeling study to estimate wear of concrete. Neural Comput & Applic 24, 649–662 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1277-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1277-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation