| Literature DB >> 35888376 |
Xi Peng1,2, Zhenxin Zhuang1,2, Qiuwei Yang1,2.
Abstract
The compressive strength of concrete is an important parameter in construction practice. At present, there are few reports on the prediction model of the compressive strength of concrete at a super early age. For some engineering vibration analyses, it is very necessary to study the growth law of compressive strength of concrete at a super early age. To this end, a new prediction model is proposed in this work to analyze the variation of compressive strength for the concrete at a super early age. The innovations of this work mainly lie in two aspects. The first innovation is to propose a new compressive strength-age mathematical model to predict the variation of compressive strength more accurately. The second innovation is to develop a new robust regression analysis method to obtain the fitting parameters in the mathematical model more effectively. Using the experimental data of the super early age concrete, the proposed prediction model is compared with the existing power function model and the hyperbolic function model. The results of the comparative study show that the prediction model proposed in this work is more reasonable and reliable. Taking C40 under natural curing as an example, it has been shown from the comparative study that: (1) The total fitting error of the proposed model is approximately 60% of that of the power function model, and approximately 17% of that of the hyperbolic model; (2) The fitting standard deviation of the proposed model is approximately 49% of that of the power function model, and approximately 15% of that of the hyperbolic model; (3) The 28 day strength of concrete predicted by the proposed model is more in line with the actual strength growth law of concrete.Entities:
Keywords: compressive strength; concrete; predictive model; regression analysis; super early age
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888376 PMCID: PMC9320757 DOI: 10.3390/ma15144914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Curve fitting results using the three models for C30 under natural curing.
Figure 2Curve fitting results using the three models for C30 under standard curing.
Figure 3Curve fitting results using the three models for C40 under natural curing.
Figure 4Curve fitting results using the three models for C40 under standard curing.
The total fitting errors of the three prediction models.
| Case | Power Function Model | Hyperbolic Model | Proposed Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| C30 (Natural curing, MPa) | 0.0684 | 0.1351 | 0.0586 |
| C30 (Standard curing, MPa) | 0.0906 | 0.4738 | 0.2704 |
| C40 (Natural curing, MPa) | 0.2944 | 1.053 | 0.1751 |
| C40 (Standard curing, MPa) | 0.3599 | 1.4813 | 0.2735 |
The total fitting standard deviations of the three prediction models.
| Case | Power Function Model | Hyperbolic Model | Proposed Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| C30 (Natural curing, MPa) | 0.011 | 0.0279 | 0.0085 |
| C30 (Standard curing, MPa) | 0.016 | 0.0814 | 0.0499 |
| C40 (Natural curing, MPa) | 0.0709 | 0.2266 | 0.0344 |
| C40 (Standard curing, MPa) | 0.0873 | 0.2685 | 0.0547 |
Predicted compressive strengths of concrete with 28 days by the three models.
| Case | Power Function Model | Hyperbolic Model | Proposed Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| C30 (Natural curing, MPa) | 1783 | 44.3 | 40.5 |
| C30 (Standard curing, MPa) | 4955 | 137.7 | 52.9 |
| C40 (Natural curing, MPa) | 1226 | 104.1 | 50.4 |
| C40 (Standard curing, MPa) | 7451 | −101.9 | 64.6 |