Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Artigo Planejamento
Artigo Planejamento
Artigo Planejamento
www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp
Abstract
Optimization of mix proportions of silica aggregates for use in polymer concrete was attempted using statistical techniques. High
purity silica aggregates of six different standard particle sizes were chosen for the study. Void content of 54 statistically designed
combinations were experimentally determined by adopting standard technique. Using Design Expert software the results were
analyzed and an optimum composition having minimum void content was achieved. The optimum combination had a correlation
coefficient of 0.95782 which proved the fitness of the selected model in analyzing the experimental data.
Ó 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Aggregate gradation; Design expert; Optimization; Polymer concrete; Regression analysis; Statistical techniques; Void
0958-9465/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00116-6
752 M. Muthukumar et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 25 (2003) 751–758
Predicted void content ¼ 24:810 ð1:986x1 Þ quadratic model fitted well with the experimental
data. The fitness of the above model with respect
ð1:147x2 Þ ð0:132x3 Þ to minimizing void content can be explained from the
þ ð1:210x4 Þ þ ð1:088x5 Þ
ð0:520x6 Þ þ ð0:602x21 Þ Table 2
Lack of fit test
þ ð0:571x22 Þ þ ð0:239x23 Þ Source Lack of fit F value
þ ð0:192x24 Þ þ ð0:684x25 Þ Sum of squares DF Mean square
Linear 130.2947 42 3.10225 18.75607
þ ð1:401x26 Þ þ ð1:155x1 x2 Þ
2FI 54.82327 27 2.03049 12.27625
þ ð0:443x1 x3 Þ þ ð0:032x1 x4 Þ Quadratic 26.23894 21 1.24947 7.55425
Cubic 1.51271 3 0.50423 3.04858
ð0:791x1 x5 Þ ð0:120x1 x6 Þ
Pure error sum of squares: 0.827.
þ ð0:899x2 x3 Þ þ ð0:030x2 x4 Þ Pure error DF: 5.
Pure error mean square: 0.16540.
ð0:713x2 x5 Þ ð0:609x2 x6 Þ
ð0:375x3 x4 Þ ð0:981x3 x5 Þ
Table 3
ð0:939x3 x6 Þ ð0:281x4 x5 Þ Model summary statistics
Source Standard deviation R squared R value
ð0:580x4 x6 Þ þ ð1:336x5 x6 Þ
Linear 1.670276 0.599971 0.774578
The above equation is based on the quadratic model 2FI 1.318738 0.830221 0.911165
suggested by the software against other models such as Quadratic 1.020293 0.917427 0.957824
linear, cubic and 2 factor interactions (2FI), since this Cubic 0.540799 0.992862 0.996425
Table 4
ANOVA for response surface quadratic model
Source Sum of squares DF Mean square F value Prob > F
Model 300.71 27 11.138 10.699 <0.0001
x1 94.68 1 94.685 90.956 <0.0001
x2 31.56 1 31.556 30.313 <0.0001
x3 0.42 1 0.419 0.402 0.5315
x4 35.11 1 35.114 33.731 <0.0001
x5 28.41 1 28.406 27.287 <0.0001
x6 6.48 1 6.479 6.224 0.0193
x21 3.73 1 3.730 3.583 0.0695
x22 3.35 1 3.348 3.216 0.0845
x23 0.59 1 0.587 0.564 0.4594
x24 0.38 1 0.380 0.365 0.5509
x25 4.82 1 4.817 4.627 0.0409
x26 20.20 1 20.200 19.404 0.0002
x1 x2 10.67 1 10.672 10.252 0.0036
x1 x3 1.57 1 1.566 1.505 0.2309
x1 x4 0.02 1 0.016 0.016 0.9015
x1 x5 5.01 1 5.009 4.811 0.0374
x1 x6 0.12 1 0.115 0.111 0.7421
x2 x3 6.46 1 6.462 6.208 0.0194
x2 x4 0.01 1 0.007 0.007 0.9344
x2 x5 8.12 1 8.123 7.803 0.0097
x2 x6 2.96 1 2.965 2.848 0.1035
x3 x4 1.13 1 1.125 1.081 0.3081
x3 x5 7.70 1 7.703 7.399 0.0115
x3 x6 14.10 1 14.100 13.545 0.0011
x4 x5 0.63 1 0.633 0.608 0.4426
x4 x6 2.69 1 2.691 2.585 0.1199
x5 x6 14.28 1 14.285 13.722 0.0010
Residual 27.07 26 1.041
Lack of fit 26.24 21 1.249 7.554 0.0169
Pure error 0.83 5 0.165
Cor. total 327.78 53
754 M. Muthukumar et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 25 (2003) 751–758
lack of fit test given in Table 2, model summary statis- Lack of fit test compares the residual error to the
tics given in Table 3 and analysis of variance (ANOVA) pure error from replication and gives F values for all the
given in Table 4. The different statistical terms models. F value must be lower if a particular model is to
used here along with their explanations are listed in be significant. From the F test, it was found that the
Appendix A. calculated F value was more than the tabulated F value
Table 5
Box Behnken design for the six variables and their experimental and predicted response (%void content)
Run A B C D E F Experimental response Predicted response
1 )1 )1 0 )1 0 0 30.16 29.32
2 0 )1 )1 0 )1 0 25.46 25.70
3 0 1 0 0 1 1 26.37 26.90
4 0 0 )1 1 0 1 27.83 28.20
5 0 0 )1 )1 0 1 27.62 26.19
6 1 0 0 1 )1 0 24.96 25.53
7 )1 )1 0 1 0 0 31.28 31.61
8 )1 0 1 0 0 1 27.37 27.13
9 1 0 0 1 1 0 26.12 25.56
10 1 0 )1 0 0 1 24.87 25.06
11 0 0 1 )1 0 )1 27.25 26.55
12 )1 0 )1 0 0 )1 29.41 29.07
13 0 )1 0 0 1 )1 29.53 28.99
14 )1 0 0 1 )1 0 28.08 27.85
15 1 )1 0 )1 0 0 21.96 22.97
16 1 0 0 )1 )1 0 23.83 22.48
17 )1 0 )1 0 0 1 30.66 30.15
18 0 0 1 1 0 )1 28.28 29.38
19 0 )1 1 0 1 0 27.91 27.24
20 0 )1 0 0 )1 )1 28.28 28.06
21 1 0 1 0 0 1 23.79 23.80
22 )1 0 0 1 1 0 30.12 31.05
23 0 1 1 0 1 0 25.87 25.32
24 )1 1 0 1 0 0 27.66 27.07
25 0 )1 0 0 1 1 30.28 31.84
26 0 1 0 0 )1 )1 30.28 28.41
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.25 24.81
28 )1 0 0 )1 )1 0 23.96 24.94
29 1 1 0 )1 0 0 22.84 22.93
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.33 24.81
31 0 – 0 0 )1 1 25.62 25.57
32 0 1 0 0 )1 1 23.25 23.48
33 0 )1 1 0 )1 0 25.33 25.60
34 )1 0 0 )1 1 0 29.41 29.26
35 0 0 1 )1 0 1 24.25 24.80
36 0 1 1 0 )1 0 26.08 26.53
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.83 24.81
38 1 0 0 )1 1 0 23.83 23.64
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.33 24.81
40 0 0 1 1 0 1 26.50 25.31
41 0 1 )1 0 )1 0 22.05 23.03
42 )1 1 0 )1 0 0 24.13 24.65
43 0 )1 )1 0 1 0 31.40 31.26
44 0 0 )1 1 0 )1 28.74 28.52
45 )1 0 1 0 0 )1 29.66 29.80
46 1 0 )1 0 0 )1 24.54 24.46
47 0 0 )1 )1 0 )1 22.67 24.19
48 0 1 )1 0 1 0 26.33 25.75
49 1 0 1 0 0 )1 26.12 26.96
50 0 1 0 0 1 )1 26.12 26.49
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.50 24.81
52 1 )1 0 1 0 0 26.33 25.39
53 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.62 24.81
54 1 1 0 1 0 0 25.04 25.47
M. Muthukumar et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 25 (2003) 751–758 755
Table 6
Experimental combination vs optimized combination
S. no Variable Experimental combination having minimum void Optimized combination having minimum void
Coded Uncoded % Coded Uncoded %
1 A 1 100 40 0.81 90.5 39.6
2 B )1 0 0 0.53 76.5 33.5
3 C 0 50 20 )1.0 0 0
4 D )1 0 0 )1.0 0 0
5 E 0 50 20 )1.0 0 0
6 F 0 50 20 0.23 61.5 26.9
for the corresponding degrees of freedom thus rejecting model, the quadratic model comes out the best: low
the null hypothesis of ‘‘significant lack of fit’’ for linear, standard deviation and high R squared statistics.
2FI and quadratic models indicating that the lack of fit ANOVA for response surface quadratic model gives
is insignificant. Quadratic being the higher order poly- the sum of squares and degrees of freedom for the model
nomial was selected among them. For the cubic model, terms from which mean square of the model terms are
the calculated F value was less than the tabulated F calculated. F value of the quadratic model and indi-
value for corresponding degrees of freedom, thus ac- vidual model terms helps in finding their significance.
cepting the null hypothesis, indicating that the lack of fit The model F value of 10.70 implies that the model is
is significant thereby making this model aliased and significant. Values of ‘‘Prob > F ’’ less than 0.0500 in-
hence was disqualified. dicate significant model terms. Thus x1 , x2 , x4 , x5 , x6 , x25 ,
Model summary statistics gives several comparative x26 , x1 x2 , x1 x5 , x2 x3 , x2 x5 , x3 x5 , x3 x6 , x5 x6 are significant
measures for model selection. Ignoring the aliased model terms. Among the different models studied, only
Factor Plot
25.0
24.5
24.0
23.5
23.0
% void
22.5
22.0
21.5
21.0
20.5
20.0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Coded value
Fig. 3. 3D diagram showing the contour plots for grades B and F on Fig. 4. 3D diagram showing the contour plots for grades A and B on
the void content. the void content.
M. Muthukumar et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 25 (2003) 751–758 757
contour plots of the effect of three significant variables coarser aggregates. The optimum combination had a
A, B and F on the void content are shown in Figs. 2–4. void content less than the experimentally determined
void content with a correlation coefficient of 0.95782
which proved the fitness of the selected model in ana-
6. Conclusion lyzing the experimental data.
Model sum of squares Total of the sum of squares for the terms in the model
Residual sum of squares Total of the sum of squares of all the terms not included in the model
Lack of fit sum of squares Residual sum of squares after removing the pure error sum of squares
Pure error sum of squares Sum of squares from replicated points
Model DF Number of model terms including intercept )1
Residual DF Corrected total DF minus the model DF
Lack of fit DF Amount of information available after accounting for blocking model terms
and pure error
Pure error DF Amount of information available from replicated points
Mean square Sum of squares divided by DF
Model F value A test for comparing model variance with residual variance. If the variances
are close to the same the ratio will be close to one and it is less likely that any
of the factors have a significant effect on the response calculated by model
mean square divided by residual mean square
Term F value Test for comparing term variance with residual variance. If the variances are
close to the same, the ratio will be close to 1 and it is less likely that the term
has a significant effect on the response. Calculated by term mean square
divided by residual mean square
Lack of fit F value Test for comparing lack of fit variance with pure error variance. If the
variances are close to the same, the ratio will be close to 1 and it is less likely
that lack of fit is significant
Prob > F Probability of seeing the observed F value if the null hypothesis is true. Small
probability values call for rejection of the null hypothesis. The probability
equals the proportion of the area under the curve of the F -distribution that
lies beyond the observed F value. The F distribution itself is determined by
the degrees of freedom associated with the variances being compared
R squared A measure of the amount of deviation around the mean explained by the
model. 1 ðSS residual=ðSS model þ SS residualÞÞ
Adj. R squared A measure of the amount of variation around the mean explained by the
model adjusted for the number of terms in the model. The adjusted R squared
decreases as the number of terms in the model increases if those additional
terms donÕt add value to the model. 1ððSS residual=DF residualÞ=
ððSS modelþSS residualÞ=ðDF modelþDF residualÞÞÞ
Pure error Amount of variation in the response in replicated design points
Cor. total Totals of all information corrected for the mean
758 M. Muthukumar et al. / Cement & Concrete Composites 25 (2003) 751–758
References [6] Kantha Rao VVL, Krishnamoorthy S. Aggregates for least void
content for use in polymer concrete. Cement Concrete Aggr 1993;
[1] ACI Committee 548. Guide for the use of polymers in concrete. 15(2):97–107.
ACI 548.1R-97, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, [7] Charles RH, Kennneth Jr VT. Fundamental concepts in the
MI, 1997. design of experiments. Oxford: University Press; 1999.
[2] Ehrenburg DO. Proportioning of coarse aggregate for conven- [8] Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS. Statistics for experiments––an
tionally and gap graded concrete. Cement Concrete Aggr 1981; introduction to design, data analysis and model building. New
3(1):37–9. York: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
[3] Goltermann P, Johansen V, Palbol L. Packing of aggregates: an [9] Abbasi AF, Ahmad M, Wasim M. Optimization of concrete mix
alternative tool to determine the optimal aggregate mix. ACI proportioning using reduced factorial experimental technique.
Mater J 1997;September–October:435–43. ACI Mater J 1987;January–February:55–63.
[4] Popovics S. Concrete––making materials. Washington: Hemi- [10] Box G, Draper N. Empirical model building and response sur-
sphere Publishing Corporation, A McGraw Hill Book Company, faces. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
1979. [11] IS 2386 Part III Methods of test for aggregates for concrete.
[5] Ohama Y. Mix proportions and properties of polyester resin con- Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1990.
cretes. Polymers in concrete––SP 40, American Concrete Institute, [12] Mark Anderson––Statease Inc., Minneapolis, US, private commu-
Detroit, 1973, pp. 283–294. nication.