Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

Predicting the compressive strength of mortars containing metakaolin

by artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic
Mustafa Sarıdemir *
Department of Civil Engineering, Niğde University, 51100 Niğde, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic approaches have recently been used to model some of the
Received 23 September 2008 human activities in many areas of civil engineering applications. Especially from these systems in the
Received in revised form 24 November 2008 model experimental studies, very good results have been obtained. In this research, the models for pre-
Accepted 1 December 2008
dicting compressive strength of mortars containing metakaolin at the age of 3, 7, 28, 60 and 90 days have
Available online 22 January 2009
been developed in artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. For purpose of building these models, train-
ing and testing using the available experimental results for 179 specimens produced with 46 different
Keywords:
mixture proportions were gathered from the technical literature. The data used in the multilayer feed-
Mortar
Metakaolin
forward neural networks and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models are arranged in a format of five input
Compressive strength parameters that cover the age of specimen, metakaolin replacement ratio, water–binder ratio, superplast-
Neural network icizer and binder–sand ratio. According to these input parameters, in the multilayer feed-forward neural
Fuzzy logic networks and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models, the compressive strength of mortars containing
metakaolin are predicted. The training and testing results in the multilayer feed-forward neural networks
and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models have shown that neural networks and fuzzy logic systems have
strong potential for predicting compressive strength of mortars containing metakaolin.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction strength enhancement is due to a combination of the filler effect

It is well known that pozzolana such as silica fume, fly ash and
granulated blast furnace slag are industrial by-products that pres-
ent great variations of properties, which can sometimes compro-
mise their use [1]. On the other hand, the utilization of calcined
clay in the form of metakaolin as a pozzolanic addition for mortar
and concrete has received considerable interest in recent years [2].
These pozzolanic admixtures are used for reducing the cement
content in mortar and concrete production [3]. Also, the use of poz-
zolanic materials such as silica fume, fly ash and metakaolin is nec-
essary for producing high performance concrete. These materials,
when used as mineral admixtures in high performance concrete,
can improve either or both the strength and durability properties
of the concrete [4,5].
Metakaolin (MK) is a valuable pozzolanic material, it is a ther-
mally activated alumino-silicate material obtained by calcining
kaolin clay within the temperature range of 700–850 °C [2,4,5].
The principal reasons for the use of clay-based pozzolans in mortar
and concrete have been materials availability and durability
enhancement. In addition, depending on the calcining temperature
and clay type, it is also possible to obtain enhancement in strength,
particularly during the early stages of curing. The very early
* Tel.: +90 388 225 2348.
E-mail address: msdemir@nigde.edu.tr.
and accelerated cement hydration. Subsequently, these effects
are enhanced by the pozzolanic reaction between MK and Ca(OH)2
produced by the hydration cement [2]. Also, the replacement of
part of the cement by MK (up to 15%) reduces drying shrinkage
in comparison with concrete without MK [6,7].
Several researches indicate that the presence of MK in mortar
and concrete seems to increase the compressive strength (fc) as
compared to that of conventional mortar and concrete. These re-
searches have demonstrated clearly that with intelligent use con-
siderable improvement in fc, especially at the early stages of
curing, can be carried out. The increase of fc of mortar and concrete
with MK accounts for the increasing consumption of this admix-
ture in mortar and concrete. In the study of Vu et al. [3], the two
groups of specimen series with 36 different mixes have been ob-
tained. It has been designed that the binder–sand ratio are 1:2.75
and 1:2 for the first group of 6 mixes and second group of 30 mixes,
respectively. Each group included mixes with 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%
and 30% replacement by weight of cement with MK; and a control
mix without any mineral admixture. At a 10%, 15% and 20% partial
replacement of cement with MK, they have reported that the fc of
mortars increases at 7, 28, 60 and 90 days for water–binder ratios
between 0.4 and 0.53. Furthermore, it is observed that at the 30%
replacement of cement with MK, the mortar fc at all levels of the
water–binder ratios generally shows a decline at 7, 28, 60 and 90
days. In another paper, Parande et al. [5] have produced mortar

0965-9978/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.12.008
 M. Sarıdemir / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927
by replacing cement with MK partially by weight at the ratios of
5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%. Additionally, they have prepared these spec-
imens using mixes with a water–cement ratio of 0.40 and the bin-
der–sand ratio of 1:3. They have reported that the fc increased with
the addition of MK till the end of 90 days. It is also observed that
the addition of 15% of MK gives the best result when compared
to other replacement levels. Besides, it is mentioned that the addi-
tion of more than 15% of MK with cement decreases the fc. Courard
et al. [8] have produced specimens by considering the water–ce-
ment ratio of 0.5 and binder–sand ratio of 1:3 during their exper-
imental study. Prepared specimens contain mixes with 10%, 15%,
20%, 25% and 30% replacement by weight of cement with MK;
and a control mix without any mineral admixture. They have ob-
tained the maximum fc results at the mixes containing 15% MK
replacing cement by weight for 3, 7, 14 and 28 days. In the study
of Caldarone et al. [9] have produced concrete, with 5% and 10%
MK, which showed increase strengths at ages up to 365 days.
The authors reported that their MK-cement concretes exhibited
fc, which were slightly greater than silica fume–cement mixtures
at the same levels replacement by the pozzolans. Similar influences
of MK on the fc of concrete have been reported by Wild et al. [10].
In the last years, artificial neural networks (ANN) and fuzzy lo-
gic (FL) approaches, a sub-field of intelligent systems, are being
widely used to solve a wide variety of problems in civil engineering
applications [11–26]. While ANN are low-level computational
structures that perform well when dealing with raw data, FL deals
with reasoning on a higher level, using linguistic information ac-
quired from domain experts. The above-mentioned capabilities
make ANN and FL a very powerful tool to solve many civil engi-
neering problems, particularly problems, where data may be com-
plex or in an insufficient amount [12]. This purpose of the study is
to build models in ANN and FL systems to evaluate the effect of MK
on fc of mortars. For purpose of constructing these models, 46 dif-
ferent mixtures with 179 specimens of the 3, 7, 28, 60 and 90 days
fc results of mortars containing MK, used in training and testing for
the multilayer feed-forward ANN and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference
models, were gathered from the technical literature [3,5,8]. In
training and testing of these models the age of specimen (AS),
metakaolin replacement ratio (MK%), water–binder (WB) ratio,
superplasticizer (SP%) and binder–sand (BS) ratio were entered as
input; while compressive strength (fc) values were used as output.
These models were trained with 119 data of experimental results
and then remainders were used as only experimental input values
for testing and testing results similar to the experimental results
were obtained.
2. Artificial neural networks
Artificial neural networks (ANN) are based on the present
understanding of biological nervous system, although much of
the biological detail is neglected. ANN are enormously parallel sys-
tems composed of many processing elements connected by links of
variable weights [18,27]. Generally, ANN are made of an input
layer of neurons, sometimes referred to as nodes or processing
units, one or several hidden layer of neurons and output layer of
neurons. The neighboring layers are fully interconnected by
weight. The input layer neurons receive information from the out-
side environment and transmit them to the neurons of the hidden
layer without performing any calculation [17,28]. Layers between
the input and output layers are called hidden layers and may con-
tain a large number of hidden processing units [14]. All problems,
which can be solved by a perceptron can be solved with only one
hidden layer, but it is sometimes more efficient to use two or three
hidden layers. Finally, the output layer neurons produce the net-
work predictions to the outside world [17,28].
921
x1 1
wi1
x2 wi2
2 (net)j 1
Σwijoi
oj
wi3
x3 Output
3 …
... … Sum function Sigmoid activation
...
function
win
xn n
Input
Fig. 1. The artificial neuron model.
Fig. 1 shows a typical neural network with input, sum function,
sigmoid activation function and output. The input to a neuron from
another neuron is obtained by multiplying the output of the con-
nected neuron by the synaptic strength of the connection between
them [29]. The weighted sums of the input components (net)j are
calculated by using the following equation
X
n
ðnetÞj ¼ wij oi þ b ð1Þ
i¼1
where (net)j is the weighted sum of the jth neuron for the input re-
ceived from the preceding layer with n neurons, wij is the weight
between the jth neuron in the preceding layer, oi is the output of
the ith neuron in the preceding layer [15,16,24–26]. The quantity
b is called the bias and is used to model the threshold. The output
signal of the neuron, denoted by oj in Fig. 1, is related to the network
input (net)j via a transformation function called the activation func-
tion [29]. The most common activation functions are ramp, sigmoid
and Gaussian function. In general, for multilayer receptive models
as the activation function (f (net)j) sigmoid function is used. The
output of the jth neuron oj is calculated by using Eq. (2) with a sig-
moid function as follows [15,16,24]:
1
oj ¼ f ðnetÞj ¼ ð2Þ
1 þ eaðnetÞj
where a is constant used to control the slope of the semi-linear re-
gion. The sigmoid nonlinearity activates in every layer except in the
input layer [15,24,29]. The sigmoid function represented by Eq. (2)
gives outputs in (0, 1) [15,16,24–26].
In recent years, ANN have been applied to many civil engineer-
ing problems with some degree of success. In civil engineering,
neural networks have been applied to the detection of structural
damage, structural system identification, modeling of material
behavior, structural optimization, structural control, ground water
monitoring, prediction of experimental studies, and concrete mix
proportions [14].
2.1. Feed-forward neural networks
Feed-forward neural networks are the most popular and most
widely used models in many practical applications. They are
known by many different names, such as multilayer perceptrons.
In a feed-forward neural network, the artificial neurons are ar-
ranged in layers, and all the neurons in each layer have connections
to all the neurons in the next layer [13]. However, there is no con-
nection between neurons of the same layer or the neurons which
are not in successive layers. In general, the feed-forward neural
network consists of one input layer, one or two hidden layers
and one output layer of neurons [29].
The input layer receives input information and passes it onto
the neurons of the hidden layer(s), which in turn pass the informa-
tion to the output layer. The output from the output layer is the
prediction of the net for the corresponding input supplied at the in-
put nodes. Each neuron in the network behaves in the same way as
922 M. Sarıdemir / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927
discussed in Eqs. (1) and (2). There is no reliable method for decid-
ing the number of neural units required for a particular problem.
This is decided based on experience and a few trials are required
to determine the best configuration of the network [29]. In the
studies, the multilayer feed-forward type of neural networks, as
shown in Fig. 2, is considered. In a feed-forward network, the in-
puts and output variables are normalized within the range of 0–1.
2.2. The back-propagation algorithm
Neural networks learn the problems by samples like human
brain. Establishing the connections between neurons determines
the structure of network; and training connections to obtain de-
sired results determines the learning algorithm of network. There
are several learning algorithm [30]. The feed-forward multilayer
networks using a back-propagation training algorithm are em-
ployed in the present study. Back-propagation algorithm, as one
of the most well-known training algorithms for the multilayer per-
ceptron, is a gradient descent technique to minimize the error for a
particular training pattern in which it adjust the weights by a small
amount at a time [15,16,24]. The learning error for rth example is
calculated by using the following equation
1X
Er ¼ ðtj  oj Þ2
2 j
where tj is the output desired at neuron j and oj is the output pre-
dicted at neuron j. As presented in Eqs. (1) and (2) the output oj is
a function of synaptic strength and outputs of the previous layer
[29]. In the back-propagation phase, the error between the network
output and the desired output values is calculated using the so-
called generalized delta rule [31], and weights between neurons
are updated from the output layer to the input layer by using the
following equation [12]
wij ðm þ 1Þ ¼ wij ðmÞ þ gðdj oj Þ þ bwij ðtÞ
where, dj is the error signal at a neuron j, oj is the output of neuron j,
m is the number of iteration, and g, b are called learning rate and
momentum rate, respectively. dj in Eq. (4) can be calculated using
the partial derivative of the error function Er in the output layer
and other layer, respectively, by Eqs. (5) and (6) [12,29]
dj ¼ oj ðt j  oj Þð1  oj Þ
X
dj ¼ oj ð1  oj Þ dk wkj
k nonlinear behaviors with the help of FL and linguistic fuzzy rules
where, the kth layer means the upper layer of the jth layer [12]. The
above operations are repeated for each example and for all the neu-
Feed-forward
Inputs Outputs
Output
layer
Input
layer Hidden
layer
Back-propagation
Fig. 2. The architecture of a multilayer neural network.
rons until a satisfactory convergence is achieved for all the exam-
ples present in the training set [29]. The training process is
successfully completed, when the iterative process has converged.
The connection weights are captured from the trained network, in
order to use them in the recall phase [12].
2.3. Neural network model
A multilayered feed-forward neural network with a back-prop-
agation algorithm was employed in the present study. The nonlin-
ear sigmoid function was used in the hidden layer and the neuron
outputs at the output layer. The neural network architecture devel-
oped in this research has five neurons in the input layer and one
neurons in the output layer as demonstrated in Fig. 3. Two hidden
layers were used in the architecture of multilayer feed-forward
neural network due to its minimum absolute percentage error val-
ues for training and testing sets. In the first hidden layer six and in
the second hidden layer five neurons were determined.
AS, MK%, WB, SP% and BS were entered as input; while fc values
were used as outputs in training and testing of the multilayer feed-
forward neural network model. Herein, 119 data of experiment re-
sults were used for training, whereas 60 ones were employed for
testing. The limit values of input and output variables used in
ð3Þ the multilayer feed-forward neural network model are listed in Ta-
ble 1. More detail regarding input and output variables can be ob-
tained from literature [3,5,8]. Learning rate and momentum rate
values were determined and the model was trained through itera-
tions. The values of parameters obtained in the multilayer feed-for-
ward neural network model are given in Table 2. The trained model
was only tested with the input values and the results found were
close to experiment results.
3. Fuzzy logic inference system
ð4Þ The fuzzy logic (FL) concept provides a natural way of dealing
with problems where the source of imprecision is an absence of
sharply defined criteria rather than the presence of random vari-
ables. The fuzzy approach considers cases where linguistic uncer-
tainties play some role in the control mechanism of the
phenomena concerned [32]. Thus, generally speaking, such ap-
proaches are always needed. One of the methods of solving such
ð5Þ approaches is the fuzzy logic inference system [19,21–26]. Fuzzy
ð6Þ inference systems (FIS) are powerful tools for the simulation of
[22]. FIS are a rule based system comprise of three conceptual com-
ponents. These are: (1) a rule base, includes fuzzy If–then rules, (2)
a data base, defines the membership function and (3) an inference
system, combines the fuzzy rules and produces the system results
[33]. There are various FIS methodologies, such as Mamdani-type
and Sugeno-type [34–36]. The fuzzy modeling or fuzzy identifica-
N11
AS N21
N12
MK% N22
N13
WB N23 fc
N14
SP% N24 Output
N15 layer
N25
BS
N16
Input 2. Hidden
layer 1. Hidden layer
layer
Fig. 3. The system used in the multilayer neural network model for fc.
 M. Sarıdemir / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927 923

Table 1 2
Oi = μAi ( x )
3
Oi = wi
4
Oi = wi O = w z
5
i i i
The input and output quantities used in the models. wi
= μAi ( x).μBi ( y ) = x y 6
A1 w1 + w2 Oi = wi z i
Input variables Data used in training and testing the model
x w1 w1
i

Minimum Maximum A2 Π N z1 w1 z1

Age of specimen, day 3 90

Σ z(x,y)
B1 Π N z2 w2 z2 Layer 6
Metakaolin,% 0 30 y w2 w2
Water–binder ratio 0.40 0.53 Layer 3 Layer 5
Layer 1 B2 Layer 4
Superplasticizer,% 0 1.3
Binder–sand ratio 0.33 0.50
Layer 2

Output variable Fig. 5. Corresponding adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system architecture.

Compressive strength, MPa 15.45 71.20
O2i ¼ lAi ðxÞ; O2i ¼ lBi ðyÞ; i ¼ 1; 2 ð7Þ

Table 2 where, lAi and lBi are the appropriate membership functions for Ai
The values of parameters used in the multilayer neural network model. and Bi fuzzy sets, respectively. Many various membership functions
Parameters ANN
such as trapezoidal, triangular, Gaussian function, etc. can be ap-
plied to determine the membership grades [33]. In this study, the
Number of input layer neurons 5
Number of hidden layer 2
generated triangular membership function was calculated as in
Number of first hidden layer neurons 6 the following equation
Number of second hidden layer neurons 5 8 9
Number of output layer neuron 1 >
> 0; x 6 ai >
>
>
> xai >
>
Momentum rate 0.9 <
b a
; ai 6 x 6 bi =
Learning rate 0.7 O2i ¼ lAi ðxÞ ¼ i
ci x
i
ð8Þ
Error after learning 0.00006
>
>
> ci bi
; bi 6 x 6 c i >
>
>
>
: >
;
Learning cycle 15.000 0; ci 6 x
where, ai, bi and ci are the membership function’ parameters set that
tion, first explored systematically by Sugeno et al. [35,36], has change the shape of membership function from 1 to 0. These
found numerous practical applications in control, prediction and parameters are referred to as the premise parameters [33,38].
FIS [20–23]. For simplicity, it was assumed that the FIS had two in- Layer 3: This layer is the rule layer. Each neuron in this layer
puts, x and y, and one output, z. For the zero-order Sugeno-type corresponds to a single Sugeno-type fuzzy rule. A rule neuron re-
inference system, typical two rules can be expressed [24–26,33]: ceives inputs from the respective fuzzification neurons and calcu-
lates the firing strength of the rule it represents. The outputs of
R1 : If x is A1 and y is B1 ; then z1 ¼ p1 x þ q1 y þ r1 third layer, called as firing strengths O3i , are the products of the cor-
R2 : If x is A2 and y is B2 ; then z2 ¼ p2 x þ q2 y þ r2 responding degrees obtaining from layer 2, called as w in the fol-
lowing equation [25,33]
where, x and y are the crisp inputs to the node i, Ai and Bi are the
linguistic labels (low, medium, high, etc.) described by convenient O3i ¼ wi ¼ lAi ðxÞlBi ðyÞ; i ¼ 1; 2 ð9Þ
membership functions and pi, qi and ri are the consequence param-
Layer 4: This layer is the normalization layer. Each neuron in
eters (i = 1 or 2) [25,33]. If z1 and z2 are constants instead of linear
this layer receives inputs from all neurons in the rule layer, and cal-
equations, then we have zero-order Sugeno-type fuzzy model
culates the normalized firing strength of a given rule. The output of
[35–37].
each neuron in this layer is the ratio of the ith rule’s firing strength
Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate the fuzzy reasoning mechanism and
to the sum of all rules’ firing strength, and is calculated as in the
the corresponding adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS),
following equation
respectively [24–26,37]. The scheme of ANFIS consists of five layers
(Fig. 5) [25,33].The design procedure for each layer in the premise wi
O4i ¼ wi ¼ P ; i ¼ 1; 2 ð10Þ
and the consequence of ANFIS is as follows: i wt
Layer 1: In this layer, the input signals are distributed to the
Layer 5: This layer is the defuzzification layer. Each neuron in
neurons in the next layer directly [25,38].
this layer is connected to the respective normalization neuron,
Layer 2: This layer is the fuzzification layer. Each neuron in this
and also receives initial inputs, x and y. In this layer, the contribu-
layer produces membership grades of the crisp inputs which be-
tion of ith rule’s towards the total output or the model output and/
long to each of convenient fuzzy sets by using the membership
or the function defined Eq. (11) is calculated
functions. Each neuron’s output O2i is calculated as in Eq. (7)
[25,33] O5i ¼ wi zi ¼ wi ðpi x þ qi y þ r i Þ; i ¼ 1; 2 ð11Þ

Minimum or Product
μ ( x) μ ( y)
B1 [min(ai,bi) or ai,xbi]
a1 A1
b1 w1 z1 = p1 x + q1 y + r1
R1
X Y
y w1 z1 + w2 z 2
x Z=
μ (x) μ ( y) w1 + w2
A2 B2
R2 b2
w2 z 2 = p2 x + q2 y + r2
a2
X Y
x y
Fig. 4. Inference system of zero-order Sugeno-type model with two fuzzy rules.
924 M. Sarıdemir / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927

AS2 AS3 AS4 AS5

1 AS1

M. degree
0.5

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Age of specimen, day

1 MK1 MK2 MK3 MK4

1 WB1 WB2 WB3 WB4
M. degree

M. degree
0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5 0.52
Metakaolin, % Water-binder ratio

1 SP1 SP2 SP3

1 BS1 BS2 BS3
M. degree

M. degree
0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Superplasticizer, % Binder-sand ratio

Fig. 6. Membership functions of input variables for fc.

where wi is the ith neuron’s output from the previous layer. pi, qi output layer backward to the input nodes. This learning rule is ex-
and ri are the parameters set in the consequence function and also actly the same as the back-propagation learning rule used in the
the coefficients of linear combination in Sugeno-type fuzzy infer- common feed-forward neural networks [25,37]. From the ANFIS
ence system [33,38]. architecture in Fig. 5, it is observed that given the values of premise
Layer 6: This layer is represented by a single summation neuron. parameters, the overall output z can be expressed as a linear com-
This neuron calculated the sum of outputs of all defuzzification bination, a hybrid-learning rule is employed here, which combines
neurons. Each rule’s fuzzy results are transformed into a crisp out- the gradient descent and the least-squares method to find a feasi-
put in this layer by defuzzification process using the following ble set of antecedent and consequent parameters [25,37,39].
equations [25,33]
3.1. Fuzzy inference system model
w1 ðx; yÞz1 ðx; yÞ þ w2 ðx; yÞz2 ðx; yÞ w1 z1 þ w2 z2
Zðx; yÞ ¼ ¼ ð12Þ
w1 ðx; yÞ þ w2 ðx; yÞ w1 þ w2
X P In this study, totally 179 data experiment results were used in
w i z i
O6i ¼ zðx; yÞ ¼ wi zi ¼ Pi ð13Þ the processes of Sugeno-type fuzzy inference model in FL system.
i i wi Of these, 119 data experiment results were used for training and
60 data for testing of the model. The limit values of input and out-
Therefore, an adaptive network is presented in Fig. 5, which is
put variables used in Sugeno-type fuzzy inference model are listed
functionally equivalent to a FIS in Fig. 4 [24–26,37].
in Table 1. In the rule base, fuzzy variables were connected with
The basic learning rule of ANFIS is the back-propagation gradi-
‘‘prod” operators and the implication of the each rule was calcu-
ent descent, which calculates error signals recursively from the

75 75
70 ANN training results 70 ANN testing results
Predicted compressive strength, MPa
Predicted compressive strength, MPa

65 FL training results 65 FL testing results

60 60
55 55 FL testing
FL training
50 50 y = 0.9964x - 0.5842
y = 0.9966x + 0.1823
45 45 R2 = 0.9659
R2 = 0.9993
40 40
35 35 ANN testing
ANN training y = 0.9964x + 0.0946
30 30
y = 0.9923x + 0.4666 R2 = 0.9738
25 25
R2 = 0.9887
20 20
15 15
10 10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Experimental compressive strength, MPa Experimental compressive strength, MPa
Fig. 7. Comparison of fc experimental results with training results of models. Fig. 8. Comparison of fc experimental results with testing results of models.
 M. Sarıdemir / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927 925

Table 3
Testing data sets for comparison of experimental results with testing results predicted from models.

Data used in models construction Compressive strength, MPa

AS, day MK, % WB SP, % BS Experimental ANN FL Ref.
3 5 0.50 0.00 0.33 34.40 31.74 35.09 [8]
3 15 0.50 0.00 0.33 31.70 33.42 33.27 [8]
3 5 0.40 0.00 0.33 31.50 26.07 29.31 [5]
3 15 0.40 0.00 0.33 29.00 29.56 30.78 [5]
7 10 0.50 0.00 0.33 48.60 46.05 43.23 [8]
7 10 0.40 0.00 0.33 43.50 43.49 39.58 [5]
7 10 0.48 0.00 0.36 18.99 16.44 16.96 [3]
7 25 0.52 0.00 0.36 16.30 16.74 15.21 [3]
7 10 0.53 0.00 0.50 25.90 26.50 25.24 [3]
7 25 0.53 0.00 0.50 27.50 27.37 28.29 [3]
7 10 0.50 0.00 0.50 30.40 30.45 28.73 [3]
7 25 0.50 0.00 0.50 29.10 29.51 29.00 [3]
7 10 0.47 0.00 0.50 31.90 32.84 30.06 [3]
7 25 0.47 0.00 0.50 30.20 31.26 30.52 [3]
7 0 0.44 0.50 0.50 35.40 37.10 32.87 [3]
7 25 0.44 0.50 0.50 33.80 35.42 34.88 [3]
7 15 0.40 1.30 0.50 41.90 41.37 44.29 [3]
7 25 0.40 1.30 0.50 39.60 40.17 40.16 [3]
28 5 0.50 0.00 0.33 65.10 64.08 62.57 [8]
28 15 0.50 0.00 0.33 71.20 69.29 63.98 [8]
28 0 0.40 0.00 0.33 40.00 47.40 36.03 [5]
28 15 0.40 0.00 0.33 60.00 59.52 59.79 [5]
28 15 0.50 0.00 0.36 26.24 22.70 27.96 [3]
28 25 0.52 0.00 0.36 23.25 23.88 19.99 [3]
28 10 0.53 0.00 0.50 38.50 38.11 38.83 [3]
28 25 0.53 0.00 0.50 38.10 38.16 37.89 [3]
28 10 0.50 0.00 0.50 41.30 40.41 40.43 [3]
28 25 0.50 0.00 0.50 39.90 40.35 40.34 [3]
28 10 0.47 0.00 0.50 43.60 41.42 42.95 [3]
28 25 0.47 0.00 0.50 42.80 42.54 41.30 [3]
28 10 0.44 0.50 0.50 45.90 44.47 45.79 [3]
28 25 0.44 0.50 0.50 44.70 43.63 42.95 [3]
28 10 0.40 1.30 0.50 47.20 47.05 46.50 [3]
28 25 0.40 1.30 0.50 47.70 46.26 45.76 [3]
60 10 0.48 0.00 0.36 29.20 30.02 27.74 [3]
60 25 0.52 0.00 0.36 28.45 29.20 26.87 [3]
60 10 0.53 0.00 0.50 43.80 43.41 42.49 [3]
60 25 0.53 0.00 0.50 42.50 41.55 41.71 [3]
60 10 0.50 0.00 0.50 46.00 44.89 44.27 [3]
60 25 0.50 0.00 0.50 43.60 43.13 43.33 [3]
60 10 0.47 0.00 0.50 46.90 45.92 43.43 [3]
60 25 0.47 0.00 0.50 43.90 44.94 45.03 [3]
60 10 0.44 0.50 0.50 48.50 48.27 46.88 [3]
60 25 0.44 0.50 0.50 47.30 46.56 46.03 [3]
60 10 0.40 1.30 0.50 50.90 51.40 50.20 [3]
60 25 0.40 1.30 0.50 51.30 49.84 49.46 [3]
90 5 0.40 0.00 0.33 52.00 56.54 55.70 [5]
90 20 0.40 0.00 0.33 65.00 66.58 70.03 [5]
90 10 0.48 0.00 0.36 31.23 31.50 28.58 [3]
90 25 0.52 0.00 0.36 32.28 31.83 28.65 [3]
90 10 0.53 0.00 0.50 44.50 46.80 45.77 [3]
90 25 0.53 0.00 0.50 43.40 44.43 43.44 [3]
90 10 0.50 0.00 0.50 46.70 47.84 48.45 [3]
90 25 0.50 0.00 0.50 45.30 45.54 44.92 [3]
90 10 0.47 0.00 0.50 47.40 48.57 47.98 [3]
90 25 0.47 0.00 0.50 45.60 47.19 45.78 [3]
90 10 0.44 0.50 0.50 51.20 50.76 52.17 [3]
90 25 0.44 0.50 0.50 50.50 49.03 48.68 [3]
90 10 0.40 1.30 0.50 54.20 54.06 55.96 [3]
90 25 0.40 1.30 0.50 53.50 52.40 52.11 [3]

lated using ‘‘wtaver” (weighted average) defuzzification method.

The membership functions of the training data set for the input
variables of fc was determined of the triangular type and premise Table 4
parameter sub-spaces were determined by using clustering of the The fc statistical values of proposed models.
training data set. In this study, triangular membership functions,
Statistical parameters ANN FL
for the input variables AS, MK%, WB, SP% and BS were fuzzyfied
Training set Testing set Training set Testing set
by dividing them into 5, 4, 4, 3 and 3 partitions, respectively. The
membership function plots of input variables used in the training RMS 1.1344 1.7928 0.2887 2.1809
R2 0.9887 0.9738 0.9993 0.9659
of fc is shown in Fig. 6. Obviously, all of these fuzzy sets are com-
MAPE 2.0577 3.2288 0.2872 4.2169
plete and consistent on their domains and of course they are con-
926 M. Sarıdemir / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927
vex. Moreover, training continued for over 10 epochs and process
terminated by the observation of the stability in error reduction.
Thus, 720 rules are obtained for the fc as in the following:
Ri: If (AS is ASmfj) and (MK% is MK%mfk) and (WB is WBmfp) and
(SP% is SP%mfm) and (BS is BSmfn) Then (fc is fcmfi), i = 1, . . . , 720;
j = 1, . . . , 5; k, p = 1, . . . , 4; m, n = 1, . . . , 3.
4. Results and discussion
In the present study, three norms were used to comparative
evaluation of the performance of the multilayer feed-forward neu-
ral network and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models. These norms
are root-mean-squared (RMS) error, absolute fraction of variance
(R2) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) between model’s
results and experimental results which are according to the follow-
ing equations , respectively [24–26,38]
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u n
u1 X
RMS ¼ t ðti  oi Þ2
n i¼1
P P P
ðn t i oi  ti oi Þ2
R2 ¼  P P  P P 
n t 2i  ð ti Þ2 n o2i  ð oi Þ2
Pn  As a result, compressive strength values of mortars containing
1 i¼1 jt i  oi j
MAPE ¼ Pn x100
n i¼1 t i
where t is the target value, o is the output value, n is the pattern.
In the present study, fc of mortars containing MK was predicted
using the multilayer feed-forward neural network and Sugeno-
type fuzzy inference models. In the training and testing of the mul-
tilayer feed-forward neural network and Sugeno-type fuzzy infer-
ence models, various experimental data from three different
sources [3,5,8] are used. All results, obtained from experimental
studies [3,5,8] and predicted by using the training and testing re-
sults of he multilayer feed-forward neural network and Sugeno-
type fuzzy inference models, for 3, 7, 28, 60 and 90 days fc were gi-
ven in Figs. 7 and 8. The linear least square fit line, its equation and
the R2 values were shown in these figures for the training and test-
ing data. Also, inputs values and experimental results with testing
results obtained from the multilayer feed-forward neural network
and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models were given in Table 3. As
seen in Figs. 7 and 8, the values obtained from the training and
testing in the multilayer feed-forward neural network and Su-
geno-type fuzzy inference models are very close to the experimen-
tal results. The results of the multilayer feed-forward neural
network and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models demonstrate
that the ANN and FL systems can be successfully applied to estab-
lish accurate and reliable prediction models.
As seen in Figs. 7 and 8, good results were obtained from the
multilayer feed-forward neural network and Sugeno-type fuzzy
inference models. The statistical parameter values of RMS, R2 and
MAPE showed obviously this situation. The statistical values of
RMS, R2 and MAPE including all the station for both training and
testing, are given in Table 4. While the statistical values of RMS,
R2 and MAPE from training in the multilayer feed-forward neural
network model was found as 1.1344, 0.9887 and 2.0577%, respec-
tively, these values were found in testing as 1.7928, 0.9738 and
3.2288%, respectively. Similarly, while the statistical values of
RMS, and MAPE from training in the Sugeno-type fuzzy inference
model was found as 0.2887, 0.9993 and 0.2872%, respectively,
these values were found in testing as 2.1809, 0.9659 and
4.2169%, respectively. The best value of R2 is 0.9993 for training
set in the Sugeno-type fuzzy inference model. The minimum value
of R2 is 0.9659 for testing set in the Sugeno-type fuzzy inference
model. All of the statistical values in Table 4 show that the pro-
posed the multilayer feed-forward neural network and Sugeno-
type fuzzy inference models are suitable and predict the 3, 7, 28,
60 and 90 days fc values very close to the experimental values.
5. Conclusions
In this study, artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic systems
were used for the prediction the 3, 7, 28, 60 and 90 days compres-
sive strength values of mortars containing metakaolin. In the mod-
el developed in artificial neural networks system, a multilayered
feed-forward neural network with a back-propagation algorithm
was used. In the multilayer feed-forward neural network model,
two hidden layers were selected. In the first hidden layer 6 neurons
and in the second hidden layer 5 neurons were determined. In the
model developed in fuzzy logic system, Sugeno-type fuzzy infer-
ence system was used. These models were trained with input
and output data. Using only the input data in trained models the
3, 7, 28, 60 and 90 days compressive strength values of mortars
containing metakaolin were found. The compressive strength val-
ð14Þ
ues predicted from testing, for the multilayer feed-forward neural
network and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models, are very close to
the experimental results. The statistical parameter values of RMS,
ð15Þ
R2 and MAPE have shown obviously this situation.
metakaolin can be predicted in the multilayer feed-forward neural
ð16Þ
network and Sugeno-type fuzzy inference models in a quite short
period of time with tiny error rates. The conclusions have demon-
strated that artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic systems are
practicable methods for predicting compressive strength values
of mortars containing metakaolin.
References
[1] Gleize PJP, Cyr M, Escadeillas G. Effects of metakaolin on autogenous shrinkage
of cement pastes. Cement Concrete Compos 2007;29(2):80–7.
[2] Sabir BB, Wild S, Bai J. Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete:
a review. Cement Concrete Compos 2001;23(6):441–54.
[3] Vu DD, Stroeven P, Bui VB. Strength and durability aspects of calcined kaolin-
blended Portland cement mortar and concrete. Cement Concrete Compos
2001;23(6):471–8.
[4] Poon CS, Kou SC, Lam L. Compressive strength, chloride diffusivity and pore
structure of high performance metakaolin and silica fume concrete. Constr
Build Mater 2006;20(10):858–65.
[5] Parande AK, Babu BR, Karthik MA, Deepak Kumaar KK, Palaniswamy N. Study
on strength and corrosion performance for steel embedded in metakaolin
blended concrete/mortar. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(3):127–34.
[6] Zhang MH, Malhotra VM. Characteristics of a thermally activated alumino-
silicate pozzolanic material and its use in concrete. Cement Concrete Res
1995;25(8):1713–25.
[7] Brooks JJ, Megat Johari MA. Effect of metakaolin on creep and shrinkage of
concrete. Cement Concrete Compos 2001;23(6):495–502.
[8] Courard L, Darimont A, Schouterden M, Ferauche F, Willem X, Degeimbre R.
Durability of mortars modified with metakaolin. Cement Concrete Res
2003;33(9):1473–9.
[9] Caldarone MA, Gruber KA, Burg RG. High reactivity metakaolin: a new
generation mineral admixture. Concrete Int 1994(November):37–40.
[10] Wild S, Kahib JM, Jones A. Relative strength, pozzolanic activity and cement
hydration in superplasticised metakaolin concrete. Cement Concrete Res
1996;26(10):1537–44.
[11] Bai J, Wild S, Ware JA, Sabir BB. Using neural networks to predict workability of
concrete incorporating metakaolin and fly ash. Adv Eng Softw 2003;34(11–
12):663–9.
[12] Ince R. Prediction of fracture parameters of concrete by artificial neural
networks. Eng Fract Mech 2004;71(15):2143–59.
[13] Adhikary BB, Mutsuyoshi H. Prediction of shear strength of steel fiber RC
beams using neural networks. Constr Build Mater 2006;20(9):801–11.
[14] Kewalramani AM, Gupta R. Concrete compressive strength prediction using
ultrasonic pulse velocity through artificial neural networks. Auto Constr
2006;15(15):374–9.
[15] Pala M, Özbay E, Öztasß A, Yüce MI. Appraisal of long-term effects of fly ash and
silica fume on compressive strength of concrete by neural networks. Constr
Build Mater 2007;21(2):384–94.
[16] Topçu IB,_ Sarıdemir M. Prediction of properties of waste AAC aggregate
concrete using artificial neural networks. Comput Mater Sci
2007;41(1):117–25.
[17] Demir F. Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high strength concrete by
artificial neural network. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(7):1428–35.
 M. Sarıdemir / Advances in Engineering Software 40 (2009) 920–927 927

[18] Altun F, Kisßi Ö, Aydin K. Predicting the compressive strength of steel fiber [29] Mukherjee A, Biswas SN. Artificial neural networks prediction of mechanical
added lightweight concrete using neural network. Comput Mater Sci behavior of concrete at high temperature. Nucl Eng Des 1997;178(1):1–11.
2008;42(2):259–65. [30] Tosun N, Özler L. A study of tool life in hot machining using artificial neural
[19] S
ß en Z. Fuzzy algorithm for estimation of solar irradiation from sunshine networks and regression analysis method. J Mater Process Technol
duration. Sol Energy 1998;63(1):39–49. 2002;124(1–2):99–104.
[20] Muthukumaran P, Demirli K, Stiharu I, Bhat RB. Boundary conditioning for [31] Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, William RJ. Learning internal representations by
structural tuning using fuzzy logic approach. Comput Struct error propagations. In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL, editors. Proceedings
2000;74(5):547–57. parallel distributed processing foundations, vol. 1. Cambridge: MIT Press;
[21] Demir F. A new way of prediction elastic modulus of normal and high strength 1986.
concrete-fuzzy logic. Cement Concrete Res 2005;35(8):1531–8. [32] Demir F, Korkmaz KA. Prediction of lower and upper bounds of elastic modulus
_
[22] Inan G, Göktepe AB, Ramyar K, Sezer A. Prediction of sulfate expansion of PC of high strength concrete. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(7):1385–93.
mortar using adaptive neuro-fuzzy methodology. Build Environ [33] Firat M, Güngör M. River flow estimation using adaptive neuro fuzzy inference
2007;42(7):1264–9. system. Math Comput Simulat 2007;75(3–4):87–96.
_ Sarıdemir M. Prediction of rubberized concrete properties using
[23] Topçu IB, [34] Mamdani EH, Assilian S. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy
artificial neural network and fuzzy logic. Constr Build Mater logic controller. Int J Man-Machine Stud 1975;7:1–13.
2008;22(4):532–40. [35] Takagi T, Sugeno M. Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to
[24] Topçu IB,_ Sarıdemir M. Prediction of compressive strength of concrete modeling and control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyb 1985;15:116–32.
containing fly ash using artificial neural network and fuzzy logic. Comput [36] Sugeno M, Kang GT. Structure identification of fuzzy model. Fuzzy Sets Syst
Mater Sci 2008;41(3):305–11. Man Cyb 1993;23:665–85.
[25] Topçu IB,_ Sarıdemir M. Prediction of mechanical properties of recycled [37] Akbulut S, Hasiloğlu AS, Pamukcu S. Data generation for shear modulus and
aggregate concretes containing silica fume using artificial neural networks damping ratio in reinforced sands using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
and fuzzy logic. Comput Mater Sci 2008;41(1):74–82. system. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2004;24(11):805–14.
_ Sarıdemir M. Prediction of rubberized mortar properties using
[26] Topçu IB, [38] Fazel Zarandi MH, Türksen IB, Sobhani J, Ramezanianpour AA. Fuzzy
artificial neural network and fuzzy logic. J Mater Process Technol 2008;199(1– polynomial neural networks for approximation of the compressive strength
3):108–18. of concrete. Appl Soft Comput 2008;8(11):488–98.
[27] Lippman R. An introduction to computing with neural nets. IEEE ASSP Mag [39] Jang JSR, Sun CT. Neuro-fuzzy modeling and control. Proc IEEE
1987;4:4–22. 1995;83:378–405.
[28] Mansour MY, Dicleli M, Lee JY, Zhang J. Predicting the shear strength of
reinforced concrete beams using artificial neural network. Eng Struct
2004;26(6):781–99.