International Conference & Exposition on Mechanical,

Material and Manufacturing Technology

(ICE3MT2020)
9-10 October, 2020, Hyderabad, INDIA

Formulation of polynomial equation predicting the splitting tensile

strength of concrete
Paper ID MATPR-D-20-05648
Presenting Author: Khan Abid Ahsan

Civil Engineering, Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology, Dhaka- 1208, Bangladesh
Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 1
Outline

• Objective
• Introduction
• Methodology
• Result and Discussion
• Conclusion
• Recommendation

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 2
 Objective Result and discussion
Objective Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation

• To establish polynomial equations for predicting split tensile strength of concrete form its
compressive strength for 7 and 28 days by polynomial regression analysis.

• To compare different power models with the developed models.

• To assess the formulated equations with different error parameters like R2, RMSE, MAPE
and IAE etc.

• To observe the tensile strength gaining rate of concrete for different cases.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 3
 Objective Result and discussion
Introduction Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation

• The mechanical properties of concrete such as compressive strength, modulus of

elasticity, tensile strength play a fundamental role in analyzing and designing
sustainable concrete structures.

• Tensile strength is required for the design of mass concrete structures like sidewalk,
sub-base supported rigid pavement, dam, airfield runway slab and highway pavement
slab etc.

• There are three methods to measure the tensile strength of concrete. Amongst them the
easiest and most reliable technique is split tensile strength test of cylindrical specimen
because it gives a smaller coefficient of deviation.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 4
 Objective Result and discussion
Introduction Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation

• There is no direct relationship between the compressive strength and the split tensile strength of
concrete. The following empirical formula suggested by various researchers indicates a relationship
between splitting tensile strength (fspt) and compressive strength (f`c): fspt (MPa) = K (f`c)n , where k and
n are constant coefficients and f`c is the compressive strength of concrete cylinder in S. I. unit .

• Numerous values of the experimental coefficients k and n offered by many researchers are presented in
table 1:
Table 1: Values of coefficients k and n
Source K n Source K n
ACI318-14 0.56 0.5 CEB-FIB 0.3 2/3
Iravani 0.57 0.5 Gardner 0.33 2/3
Raphael 0.313 2/3 Ros 0.2 0.8
ACI 363R-92 0.59 0.5 De Larrard & Malier (French code) 0.6+0.06*f`c
Oluokun et al. 0.294 0.69 Severcan –
Arioglu et al. 0.387 0.63 Zain et al. f`c/(0.10*f`c+7.11)

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 5
 Objective Result and discussion
Introduction Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation

• From the past analyses, researchers investigated that the models given by ACI predicted less split
tensile strength for high strength concrete (f`c > 30 Mpa) whereas an overestimation was found
for low strength concrete (f`c < 20 MPa) . 2/3 power models are more fit with the test result in 7
or less than 7 days. But these models are not given a significant amount of accuracy in predicting
tensile strength at early days. On the other hand, some models predicted well for a particular
range like Iravani predicted well in 50 MPa < f`c < 100 Mpa range and ACI 363R-92 predicted
well in 21 MPa < f`c < 83 MPa range. But the prediction of 0.5 power models does not match
with the experimental results.

• It is observed from the past studies that there is a nonlinear relationship between STS and
compressive strength. Polynomial regression analysis has been adopted in this study because it
can fit smoothly with a nonlinear relation and allow higher order which ensures higher accuracy.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 6
 Objective Result and discussion
Methodology Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
• To develop the models, regression analysis has been conducted and data were collected from various
literatures. The collected cube compressive strength is adjusted by multiplying a factor 0.80. Collected
data have a variety of types of cement (OPC Type I, OPC Type II, OPC Type III, OPC Type V), several
supplementary cementitious materials (flyash, silica fume, ground brush furnace slag), various water-
binder ratios (w/b) ranging from 0.22 to 0.85 and concrete compressive strength from 0 MPa up to 120
MPa for 7 and 28 days.

• This study focuses on the mathematical formulation to predict the splitting tensile strength (f spt) by
developing the polynomial models for both 7 and 28 days. For an individual day, two cases are
considered. The case consideration details is given below:
Table 2. 7 and 28 days of case consideration
Model Name Condition
Polynomial – I (7 days) Polynomial – III (28 f`c > 20 MPa with w/b
days)
Polynomial – II (7 days) Polynomial – IV (28 w/b ratio ≥ 0.51 with any f`c or f’c < 20 MPa for
days) any
w/b ratio

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 7
 Objective Result and discussion
Methodology Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Formula of polynomial models for 7 days and 28 days are respectively,

y1 = 659.2545 × 10-3 + 69.2872 × 10-3x + 2.2896 × 10-3x2 – 114.0361× 10-6x3 + 1.6480 × 10-6x4 – 7.3398× 10-9x5 .……(1)
y2 = 90.6485 × 10-3 + 195.3429 × 10-3x – 4.2412 × 10-3x2 + 45.9725 × 10-6x3 – 3.2234 × 10-6x4 + 73.3138 × 10-9x5 …..(2)
y3 = – 10.3315 + 1.2845x – 47.6858 × 10-3x2 + 878.5305 × 10-6x3 – 7.8607 × 10-6x4 + 27.5266 × 10-9x5 ..…………….(3)
y4 = 7.4515 – 1.7713x + 181.9108 × 10-3x2 – 8.2208 × 10-3x3 + 173.5258 × 10-6x4– 1.3909 × 10-6x5 ...………………...(4)
where y is predicted splitting tensile value and x is cylinder or converted cylinder compressive strength value.
6.5
Polynomial 1 3.5 Polynomial 2

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

6.0
3.0
5.5 R² = 0.776348546814956
R² = 0.879106631040893
5.0 2.5
4.5
2.0
4.0

3.5
1.5
3.0

2.5 1.0

2.0
0.5
1.5

1.0 0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (MPa)

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 8
 Objective Result and discussion
Methodology Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation

Polynomial 3 3.5
Polynomial 4
8.0

7.5 R² = 0.867552786185287 R² = 0.935655379268136

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

3.0
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

7.0

6.5
2.5
6.0

5.5
2.0
5.0

4.5
1.5
4.0

3.5
1.0
3.0

2.5
0.5
2.0

1.5 0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig 1: Generation of polynomial (I – IV) models from experimental values

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 9
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of Polynomial I:
6.5 6.5
De Larrard and
6.0 6.0 malier
5.5 5.5 Severcan
Experimental Value
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

5.0 5.0
M.F.M Zain
4.5 4.5 Polynomial 1
4.0 4.0
Polynomial
(Polynomial 1)
3.5 3.5

3.0
ACI 318-14
3.0

2.5 Experimental Value 2.5

2.0 ACI 363R-92 2.0

1.5 1.5
Iravani
1.0 1.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (Mpa)

Fig. 2: Prediction of split tensile strength by 0.5 power models for Fig 3: Prediction of split tensile strength by non-power models for
polynomial – I case polynomial – I case
• 0.5 power models estimate more up to 60 MPa and an • In non-power models, where De Larrard & Malier (French
underestimation is found for 60.01 to 80 MPa range. When code) model estimates less up to 35 MPa and fits well for
the compressive strength ranges from 65.01 to 80 MPa, rest of the range.
there is a reduction in prediction rate compared to 20-65 • Several and Zain et al., these two are underestimating STS
Mpa. values from 70 to 80 Mpa.
Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 10
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of Polynomial I:
6.5
7.0

6.5 6.0

6.0 5.5
Split Tenlile Strength (Mpa)

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

5.5 5.0

5.0 4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
Oluokun et al. Raphael
3.0
3.0
Arioglu et al. 2.5
CEB-FIB
2.5

2.0 Ros 2.0 Experimental Value

1.5 Experimental Value 1.5 Gardner
1.0 1.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig 4: Prediction of split tensile strength by different Fig 5: Prediction of split tensile strength by 2/3 power
power models for polynomial – I case models for polynomial – I case
• Different power models such as Oluokun et al., Arioglu • For 2/3 power models, CEB-FIB is quite fit with the
et al., and Ros are properly fitted up to 45 MPa and experimental values compared to Raphael, and Gardner.
overestimated for the range of 45.01 to 80 Mpa. • Raphael and Gardner are unfit in higher compressive
strength.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 11
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of Polynomial II:
4.0

3.5
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5
ACI 318-14
1.0
Power (ACI 318-
14)
Experimental
0.5 Value
ACI 363R-92
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig 6: Prediction of split tensile strength by 0.5 power Fig 7: Prediction of split tensile strength by non-power models
models for polynomial – II case for polynomial – II case
• Non-power models like De Larrard & Malier (French code) is fitted
• 0.5 power models overestimate split tensile for the range of 25.01 to 40 MPa, but it underestimates STS for 0 to
strength to the overall range of compressive 25 MPa.
• On the contrary, non-power models such as Several and Zain et al.,
strength. these two fitted well for 0 to 30 MPa range, and from 30.01 to 40
MPa, it is over predicted.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 12
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of Polynomial II:
4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5
Split Tensile Strength (Mpa)

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig 8: Prediction of split tensile strength by different
power models for polynomial – II case
• Different power models such as Oluokun et al.,
Arioglu et al., and Ros perfectly fit up to 20 MPa,
30 MPa, and 30 Mpa of compressive strength
respectively and but distort the rest of the range of
compressive strength
Fig 9: Prediction of split tensile strength by 2/3 power
models for polynomial – II case
• For 2/3 power models, CEB-FIB and Raphael
relatively fit with the experimental values up to 30
MPa, where Gardner can predict well up to 20MPa.
After that all 2/3 power models forecasted more than
the experimental value.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 13
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of polynomial III:
8.0 8.0
De Larrard and malier
7.5 ACI 318-14 7.5
7.0
Severcan
7.0

Split Tensile Strength ( Mpa)

Experimental Value
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

6.5
Experimental Value
6.5
ACI 363R-92 6.0
M.F.M Zain
6.0
5.5
Polynomial 3
5.5 Iravani
5.0
Polynomial (Poly-
5.0
nomial 3)
4.5 4.5

4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (Mpa)

Fig 10: Prediction of split tensile strength by 0.5 power Fig 11: Prediction of split tensile strength by non-power
models for polynomial – III case models for polynomial – III case
• In non-power models, De Larrard & Malier (French code) model
• 0.5 power models are rather fit with experimental
estimate less up to 35 MPa and fit for 35.01 to 90 MPa. Again, it
values up to 80 MPa but underestimate the rest of
estimates less in the range of 90.01 to 100 MPa where Several and
the range.
Zain et al. these two are relatively fit with the experimental values
of the full range of the compressive strength.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 14
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of Polynomial III:
8.0 8.0
7.5 7.5 Raphael
Split Tenlile Strength (Mpa)

7.0 7.0
CEB-FIB
6.5 6.5

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

6.0 6.0 Experimental Value
5.5 5.5 Gardner
5.0 5.0
4.5 4.5
4.0 4.0
Oluokun et al.
3.5 3.5
3.0 Arioglu et al. 3.0
2.5
Experimental Value 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig 12: Prediction of split tensile strength by different Fig 13: Prediction of split tensile strength by 2/3 power
power models for polynomial – III case models for polynomial – III case
• Different power models such as Oluokun et al. and • 2/3 power models, all fitted well with the experimental
Arioglu et al. perfectly fitted up to 50 MPa and for values up to 55 MPa and thus it is not closer to the
the rest of the range sometimes it estimates more experimental values for the rest of the range of compressive
and sometimes less. strength.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 15
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of Polynomial IV:
4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0 De Larrard and malier

ACI 318-14
Severcan
1.5 1.5
Experimental Value Experimental Value
1.0 ACI 363R-92 1.0 M.F.M Zain
Polynomial 4
0.5
Iravani
0.5
Polynomial (Poly-
nomial 4)
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (Mpa)

Fig 14: Prediction of split tensile strength by 0.5 power Fig 15: Prediction of split tensile strength by non-power
models for polynomial – IV case. models for polynomial – IV case.
• 0.5 power models forecast more for the full range of • De Larrard & Malier (French code) model measured less and
compressive strength Several forecasts more for the whole range of compressive
strength, however Zain et al. model thoroughly fitted with
the experimental values.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 16
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Graphical representation of Polynomial IV:
4.5 4.0

4.0 3.5

3.5

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

3.0
Split Tenlile Strength (Mpa)

3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
Raphael
Oluokun et al. 1.5
1.5
CEB-FIB
1.0 Arioglu et al. 1.0
Experimental Value
0.5 Experimental Value 0.5
Gardner
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Compressive Strength (MPa) Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig 16: Prediction of split tensile strength by different Fig 17: Prediction of split tensile strength by 2/3 power
power models for polynomial – IV case.. models for polynomial – IV case.
• Different power models all are overestimated. • In 2/3 power models, CEB-FIB fits more perfectly than
the other two 2/3 power models.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 17
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Error Calculation:
Table 3: Error calculation of 7 days for different models
For polynomial – I For polynomial - II
Source
R2 RMSE MAPE IAE R2 RMSE MAPE IAE
ACI318-14 0.7295 0.4979 13.6260 12.4127 0.8090 0.3431 15.3704 13.0920
Iravani 0.7295 0.5236 14.5683 13.0807 0.8090 0.3745 16.8285 14.4509
Raphael 0.7378 0.5958 15.6673 14.4504 0.7815 0.3295 12.3888 12.2447
ACI 363R-92 0.7295 0.5937 16.7290 14.7364 0.8090 0.4435 19.9359 17.3685
Oluokun et al. 0.7389 0.6760 17.7462 16.6008 0.7774 0.3496 12.8294 12.8722
Arioglu et al. 0.7361 0.8105 22.1359 20.3898 0.7879 0.4358 16.1561 15.8733
CEB-FIB 0.7378 0.5043 13.0989 12.0840 0.7815 0.3185 12.1044 12.0306
Gardner 0.7378 0.7524 20.0879 18.7049 0.7815 0.3805 13.9328 13.8739
Ros 0.7436 0.8389 20.9732 20.6085 0.7572 0.4023 15.3977 15.0740
De Larrard & Malier
0.7509 0.5251 12.2973 12.0219 0.7182 0.5045 19.8449 19.8915
(French code)
Severcan 0.7295 0.5599 15.7194 13.9440 0.8090 0.6750 31.1291 28.1625
Zain et al. 0.7137 0.5264 13.9546 12.8431 0.7837 0.3845 15.7839 14.6833
Current Study 0.7763 0.4106 10.2593 9.5673 0.8791 0.1961 8.6295 7.6029

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 18
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
Error Calculation:
Table 4: Error calculation of 28 days for different models
For polynomial – III For polynomial - IV
Source
R2 RMSE MAPE IAE R2 RMSE MAPE IAE
ACI318-14 0.7878 0.5913 10.1868 10.5838 0.9181 0.3431 15.8376 12.7333
Iravani 0.7878 0.5658 10.1048 10.2666 0.9181 0.3780 17.5736 14.3406
Raphael 0.7975 0.5425 11.3222 11.0335 0.9173 0.2216 9.2449 8.4527
ACI 363R-92 0.7878 0.5404 10.5570 10.2617 0.9181 0.4538 21.5381 18.1585
Oluokun et al. 0.7987 0.6063 12.6892 12.2974 0.9170 0.2408 9.7972 9.1962
Arioglu et al. 0.7955 0.6732 14.5545 13.7615 0.9176 0.4052 17.0175 15.6814
CEB-FIB 0.7975 0.5231 10.1820 10.1040 0.9173 0.3113 12.7829 11.9228
Gardner 0.7975 0.6501 13.7750 13.2058 0.9173 0.1910 7.5435 6.8907
De Larrard & Malier
0.8127 0.7058 14.4586 13.6963 0.9097 0.4328 15.9164 16.6227
(French code)
Severcan 0.7878 0.5472 10.2540 10.1594 0.9181 0.4194 19.7510 16.4284
Zain et al. 0.7630 0.5598 10.1614 10.3215 0.9189 0.2160 8.2049 7.7404
Current Study 0.8676 0.4108 8.6710 8.0094 0.9357 0.1677 6.3008 5.8647

• Based on different error measuring parameters, the four formulated equations (Polynomial-I, Polynomial-II,
Polynomial-III, Polynomial-IV) might offer an efficient assessment in predicting STS value.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 19
 Objective Result and discussion
Result and Discussion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation

Comparison of formulated polynomial models:

0.12

• The ratio of STS and compressive strength is nonlinearly 0.11

decreasing as the compressive strength increases for all the
polynomial models except polynomial-III. 0.10

• For polynomial III The ratio of STS and compressive strength

0.09

fspt/f`c
is initially increased up to 25 MPa because, in 28 days, the 0.08

STS gaining rate is high for high compressive strength

concrete. Then the polynomial III curve decreases like the 0.07
Polynomial 1 Polynomial 2
other three models. 0.06
Polynomial 3 Polynomial 4

• The STS and compressive strength ratio for polynomial – I and 0.05
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

polynomial – II models which are developed for 7 days, Compressive Strength (MPa)
decrease nonlinearly at a lower rate than polynomial – III and
Fig 18: Comparison of different polynomial models
polynomial – IV models which are formulated for 28 days with ratio of predicted STS and compressive
strength

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 20
 Objective Result and Discussion
Conclusion Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation
• It is observed that as the compressive strength increases, the proportion of STS and compressive strength
is reduced. This declining rate is different and nonlinear for all the models.

• For both 7 and 28 days, in low water binder ratio and high compressive strength case, the STS of
concrete and compressive strength ratio is less compared to high water binder ratio and low compressive
strength case concrete in the low strength of concrete.

• The 28 days prediction models are predicted more accurate than the prediction models of 7 days while
predicting the STS values. STS values are more suited and solid than 7 days of STS values.

• The STS gaining rate in 7 days is not much higher related to 28 days. The tensile strength gaining rate of
concrete is not so high in the early days (7 days) as like as concrete compressive strength.

• In 0.5 power modes, all are over-predicted the STS value under 20 MPa of compressive strength for both
7 and 28 days, which might be overcome by polynomial – II and polynomial – IV equations.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 21
 Objective Result and Discussion
Recommendation Introduction
Methodology
Conclusion
Recommendation

In this study all the prediction models are formed for plain concrete. It is recommended
to evaluate the effectiveness of these models for other types of concrete such as
geopolymer, pervious, steel fiber reinforced concrete etc.

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 22
 THANK
YOU

Organized by Department of Mechanical Engineering, CVR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA 23