| Literature DB >> 28772495 |
Ahmed Ramadan Suleiman1, Moncef L Nehdi2.
Abstract
This paper presents an approach to predicting the intrinsic self-healing in concrete using a hybrid genetic algorithm-artificial neural network (GA-ANN). A genetic algorithm was implemented in the network as a stochastic optimizing tool for the initial optimal weights and biases. This approach can assist the network in achieving a global optimum and avoid the possibility of the network getting trapped at local optima. The proposed model was trained and validated using an especially built database using various experimental studies retrieved from the open literature. The model inputs include the cement content, water-to-cement ratio (w/c), type and dosage of supplementary cementitious materials, bio-healing materials, and both expansive and crystalline additives. Self-healing indicated by means of crack width is the model output. The results showed that the proposed GA-ANN model is capable of capturing the complex effects of various self-healing agents (e.g., biochemical material, silica-based additive, expansive and crystalline components) on the self-healing performance in cement-based materials.Entities:
Keywords: artificial neural network; autogenous; crack width; genetic algorithm; self-healing
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772495 PMCID: PMC5459209 DOI: 10.3390/ma10020135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic illustration of (a) artificial neuron; and (b) biological neuron.
Figure 2Architecture of genetic algorithm–artificial neural network (GA–ANN) model.
Values of parameters used in GA–ANN modeling.
| Parameter | GA–ANN |
|---|---|
| Number of input layer neurons | 11 |
| Number of first hidden layer neurons | 14 |
| Number of output layer neurons | 1 |
| MSE goal | 13 × 10−5 |
Figure 3Flowchart of artificial neural network–back-propagation (ANN–BP) optimized by GA.
Database sources and range of input and output variables.
| Wiktor and Jonkers [ | 640 | |
| Sisomphon et al. [ | 594 | |
| Sahmaran et al. [ | 36 | |
| Van Tittelboom et al. [ | 182 | |
| Özbay et al. [ | 10 | |
| Cement (mR %) | 100 | 15 |
| w/c (mR %) | 60 | 25 |
| Sand (mR %) | 309 | 200 |
| BFS (mR %) | 220 | 0 |
| FA (mR %) | 220 | 0 |
| Calcium sulfo-aluminate (mR %) | 10 | 0 |
| Crystalline additive (mR %) | 4 | 0 |
| LWA (mR %) | 76 | 0 |
| LWA with bacteria spores (mR %) | 76 | 0 |
| Initial crack width (µm) | 400 | 40 |
| Healing time (days) | 150 | 0 |
| Final crack width (µm) * | 400 | 0 |
mR %: By % of mass ratio of cement. * Output variable.
Figure 4Regression plot of GA–ANN predicted change in crack width due to self-healing versus the corresponding experimentally observed change in crack width: (a) training; (b) validation; (c) test; and (d) complete data set.
Figure 5Crack development in mortar specimens tested for self-healing: (a) loading procedure; (b) crack development; and (c) crack width measurement using a microscope.
Figure 6Crack healing process: (a) cracks before healing; (b) cracks after 42 days of healing.
Figure 7GA–ANN model predictions of crack self-healing (reduction in crack width) of cementitious materials versus corresponding experimentally measured results.