| Literature DB >> 36079290 |
Muhammad Nasir Amin1, Izaz Ahmad2, Asim Abbas2, Kaffayatullah Khan1, Muhammad Ghulam Qadir3, Mudassir Iqbal2, Abdullah Mohammad Abu-Arab1, Anas Abdulalim Alabdullah1.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine how radiation attenuation would change when the thickness, density, and compressive strength of clay bricks, modified with partial replacement of clay by fly ash, iron slag, and wood ash. To conduct this investigation, four distinct types of bricks-normal, fly ash-, iron slag-, and wood ash-incorporated bricks were prepared by replacing clay content with their variable percentages. Additionally, models for predicting the radiation-shielding ability of bricks were created using gene expression programming (GEP) and artificial neural networks (ANN). The addition of iron slag improved the density and compressive strength of bricks, thus increasing shielding capability against gamma radiation. In contrast, fly ash and wood ash decreased the density and compressive strength of burnt clay bricks, leading to low radiation shielding capability. Concerning the performance of the Artificial Intelligence models, the root mean square error (RMSE) was determined as 0.1166 and 0.1876 nC for the training and validation data of ANN, respectively. The training set values for the GEP model manifested an RMSE equal to 0.2949 nC, whereas the validation data produced RMSE = 0.3507 nC. According to the statistical analysis, the generated models showed strong concordance between experimental and projected findings. The ANN model, in contrast, outperformed the GEP model in terms of accuracy, producing the lowest values of RMSE. Moreover, the variables contributing towards shielding characteristics of bricks were studied using parametric and sensitivity analyses, which showed that the thickness and density of bricks are the most influential parameters. In addition, the mathematical equation generated from the GEP model denotes its significance such that it can be used to estimate the radiation shielding of burnt clay bricks in the future with ease.Entities:
Keywords: artificial neural network; compressive strength; fired clay bricks; gene expression programming; parametric and sensitivity analysis; radiation shielding
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079290 PMCID: PMC9457075 DOI: 10.3390/ma15175908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Summary of the previous literature concerning the use of bricks against radiation shielding.
| Reference | Brick Type | Composition | Property Investigated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mann et al. 2016 [ | Clay–fly ash brick | Clay partially replaced with fly ash | Radiation shielding of brick |
| Mann, K.S. et al. 2016 [ | Clay brick | Burnt clay brick collected from local brick factories in Punjab, India | Burnt clay bricks were investigated for surface storage facilities subjected to 0.001–15 MeV gamma ray photon energies |
| Escalera-Velasco, L.A. et al. 2020 [ | Mexican artisanal bricks | Red clay bricks, yellow bricks, and bricks without cooking | Shielding behavior of artisanal bricks against ionizing photons |
| Kiatwattanacharoen et al. 2020 [ | Barium sulphate bricks | Clay brick consists of barium sulphate | Clay bricks containing barium sulphate were investigated against X-ray radiation |
| Durak et al. 2022 [ | Red and yellow clay-based bricks | Red and yellow clay-based bricks containing different amounts of Cobalt metal | Gamma and neutron shielding capacity of the brick |
| Velasco et al. 2022 [ | Mexican artisanal bricks | Red clay bricks, yellow bricks and bricks without cooking | Radiation shielding parameters of bricks were investigated and compared with NBS concrete |
| Sidhu et al. 2022 [ | Fly ash–lime–Gypsum (FaLG) | FaLG bricks are unfired compressed bricks consisting of flay ash, lime, and gypum | Shielding behavior of FaLG bricks was investigated |
Figure 1Flow diagram of the undertaken research.
Figure 2(a) Iron slag added to clay. (b) Fly ash sample. (c) Wood ash sample.
Brick types and percentage addition of fly ash, wood ash, and iron slag.
| S. No. | Brick Type | Material Added | Percentage Addition as a Replacement of Clay |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Conventional Bricks (1) | No additional material | - |
| 2 | Clay–Fly Ash Bricks (2) | Fly ash | 5%, 10%, 15%, |
| 3 | Clay–Wood Ash Bricks (4) | Wood ash | 5%, 10%,15%, 20% |
| 4 | Clay–Iron Slag Brick (3) | Iron Slag | 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% |
Physical properties of the constituent materials.
| Material Property | Bulk Density | Particle Specific Gravity | Color | Water Absorption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay | 1680 | 2.35 | Dark brown | - |
| Fly ash | 1348 | 1.9 | Black | - |
| Wood ash | 1100 | 1.51 | Light grey | - |
| Iron slag | 2500 | 3.2 | Dark grey | 1.3 |
Chemical composition of the constituent materials using XRF Analysis.
| Chemical Composition | Clay | Fly Ash | Wood Ash | Iron Slag |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SiO2 | 57% | 41% | 30.8% | 27.56% |
| Al2O3 | 31% | 22% | 29% | 4.24% |
| Fe2O3 | 7% | 29% | 2.34% | 59.7% |
| MgO | 3.5% | 1% | 8.98% | 1.87% |
| CaO | 1.5% | 2% | 11.23% | - |
| K2O | - | 1.5% | 12.13% | - |
| Na2O | - | 1.81% | 5.50% | - |
| MnO | - | - | - | 2.23% |
| P2O5 | - | - | - | 2.45% |
| SO3 | - | 1.61% | - | 1.90% |
| TiO2 | - | - | - | - |
Grain size distribution of constituent materials.
| Particle Type | Percent Finer | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <20 μm | <50 μm | <75 μm | <100 μm | <150 μm | |
| Clay | 30 | 40 | 45 | 90 | 100 |
| Fly ash | 12 | 56 | - | 86 | 100 |
| Wood ash | 9 | 43 | 66 | 89 | 100 |
| Iron slag | 2 | 15 | 40 | 63 | 90 |
Figure 3(a) Mold of radiation specimen. (b) Radiation brick specimen preparation. (c) Radiation brick specimen. (d) Normal brick specimen.
Figure 4Compressive strength in universal testing machine.
Training dataset for model development.
| Input Variables | Output Variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brick Type | Percentage Replacement | Thickness | Density | Compressive Strength | Gamma Ray Absorption |
| (cm) | (g/cm3) | (MPa) | (nC) | ||
| 2 | 5 | 2 | 1.68 | 34.42 | 3.0925 |
| 2 | 5 | 6 | 1.68 | 34.42 | 6.3425 |
| 2 | 5 | 8 | 1.68 | 34.42 | 7.3125 |
| 2 | 10 | 2 | 1.62 | 33.12 | 3.03 |
| 2 | 10 | 4 | 1.62 | 33.12 | 4.36 |
| 2 | 10 | 6 | 1.62 | 33.12 | 6.13 |
| 2 | 10 | 8 | 1.62 | 33.12 | 7.03 |
| 2 | 15 | 4 | 1.57 | 30.79 | 4.0725 |
| 2 | 15 | 6 | 1.57 | 30.79 | 5.9325 |
| 2 | 15 | 8 | 1.57 | 30.79 | 6.8725 |
| 2 | 15 | 10 | 1.57 | 30.79 | 7.1225 |
| 3 | 5 | 4 | 1.91 | 39.03 | 4.7925 |
| 3 | 5 | 6 | 1.91 | 39.03 | 6.9125 |
| 3 | 5 | 8 | 1.91 | 39.03 | 7.3925 |
| 3 | 5 | 10 | 1.91 | 39.03 | 7.6125 |
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 1.98 | 40.27 | 5.0225 |
| 3 | 10 | 6 | 1.98 | 40.27 | 7.2625 |
| 3 | 10 | 8 | 1.98 | 40.27 | 7.9225 |
| 3 | 10 | 10 | 1.98 | 40.27 | 8.1225 |
| 3 | 15 | 2 | 2.08 | 40.94 | 3.4325 |
| 3 | 15 | 4 | 2.08 | 40.94 | 5.9025 |
| 3 | 15 | 10 | 2.08 | 40.94 | 8.4195 |
| 3 | 20 | 4 | 2.14 | 41.2 | 6.13 |
| 3 | 20 | 6 | 2.14 | 41.2 | 8.05 |
| 3 | 20 | 8 | 2.14 | 41.2 | 8.51 |
| 3 | 25 | 2 | 2.23 | 42.1 | 3.92 |
| 3 | 25 | 6 | 2.23 | 42.1 | 8.14 |
| 1 | 0 | 2 | 1.76 | 36.8 | 3.14 |
| 1 | 0 | 8 | 1.76 | 36.8 | 7.35 |
| 1 | 0 | 10 | 1.76 | 36.8 | 7.48 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 1.51 | 29.32 | 3.1072 |
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 1.51 | 29.32 | 4.2427 |
| 4 | 10 | 4 | 1.47 | 26.4 | 2.8625 |
| 4 | 10 | 6 | 1.47 | 26.4 | 3.9625 |
| 4 | 10 | 8 | 1.47 | 26.4 | 4.9525 |
| 4 | 15 | 2 | 1.43 | 24.75 | 1.391 |
| 4 | 15 | 6 | 1.43 | 24.75 | 3.8125 |
| 4 | 15 | 8 | 1.43 | 24.75 | 4.7725 |
| 4 | 15 | 10 | 1.43 | 24.75 | 5.4625 |
| 4 | 20 | 2 | 1.38 | 21.6 | 1.31 |
| 4 | 20 | 4 | 1.38 | 21.6 | 2.57 |
| 4 | 20 | 6 | 1.38 | 21.6 | 3.66 |
| 4 | 20 | 8 | 1.38 | 21.6 | 4.7 |
| 4 | 20 | 10 | 1.38 | 21.6 | 5.33 |
| 4 | 5 | 8 | 1.51 | 29.32 | 5.3325 |
Validation dataset for model development.
| Brick Type | Percentage Replacement | Thickness | Density | Compressive Strength | Gamma Ray Absorption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (cm) | (g/cm3) | (MPa) | (nC) | ||
| 2 | 5 | 4 | 1.68 | 34.42 | 4.4625 |
| 2 | 5 | 10 | 1.68 | 34.42 | 7.4125 |
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 1.62 | 33.12 | 7.26 |
| 2 | 15 | 2 | 1.57 | 30.79 | 2.9146 |
| 3 | 5 | 2 | 1.91 | 39.03 | 3.2325 |
| 3 | 10 | 2 | 1.98 | 40.27 | 3.2325 |
| 3 | 15 | 6 | 2.08 | 40.94 | 7.8325 |
| 3 | 15 | 8 | 2.08 | 40.94 | 8.2225 |
| 3 | 20 | 2 | 2.14 | 41.2 | 3.66 |
| 3 | 20 | 10 | 2.14 | 41.2 | 8.66 |
| 3 | 25 | 4 | 2.23 | 42.1 | 6.22 |
| 3 | 25 | 8 | 2.23 | 42.1 | 8.71 |
| 3 | 25 | 10 | 2.23 | 42.1 | 8.93 |
| 1 | 0 | 4 | 1.76 | 36.8 | 4.63 |
| 1 | 0 | 6 | 1.76 | 36.8 | 6.52 |
| 4 | 5 | 2 | 1.51 | 29.32 | 1.4111 |
| 4 | 5 | 10 | 1.51 | 29.32 | 6.0025 |
| 4 | 10 | 2 | 1.47 | 26.4 | 1.3895 |
| 4 | 10 | 10 | 1.47 | 26.4 | 5.6725 |
| 4 | 15 | 4 | 1.43 | 24.75 | 2.8225 |
Figure 5Schematics of GEP modelling.
Figure 6Experimental test results.
Figure 7Comparison of experimental versus predicted results in the form of regression slopes and statistical indices: (a) ANN model, (b) GEP model.
Figure 8Error analysis of the developed models: (a) tracing of experimental by predictions for ANN model, (b) absolute error from ANN model, (c) tracing of experimental by predictions for GEP model, and (d) absolute error from GEP model.
Figure 9Parametric analysis of ANN model for Type 2 bricks.
Figure 10Parametric analysis of ANN model for Type 3 bricks.
Figure 11Parametric analysis of ANN model for Type 4 bricks.