Abstract
To reduce the energy-intensity and carbon footprint of Portland cement (PC), the prevailing practice embraced by concrete technologists is to partially replace the PC in concrete with supplementary cementitious materials [SCMs: geological materials (e.g., limestone); industrial by-products (e.g., fly ash); and processed materials (e.g., calcined clay)]. Chemistry and content of the SCM profoundly affect PC hydration kinetics; which, in turn, dictates the evolutions of microstructure and properties of the [PC + SCM] binder. Owing to the substantial diversity in SCMs’ compositions–plus the massive combinatorial spaces, and the highly nonlinear and mutually-interacting processes that arise from SCM-PC interactions–state-of-the-art computational models are unable to produce a priori predictions of hydration kinetics or properties of [PC + SCM] binders. In the past 2 decades, the combination of Big data and machine learning (ML)—commonly referred to as the fourth paradigm of science–has emerged as a promising approach to learn composition-property correlations in materials (e.g., concrete), and capitalize on such learnings to produce a priori predictions of properties of materials with new compositions. Notwithstanding these merits, widespread use of ML models is hindered because they: 1) Require Big data to learn composition-property correlations, and, in general, large databases for concrete are not publicly available; and 2) Function as black-boxes, thus providing little-to-no insights into the materials laws like theory-based analytical models do. This study presents a deep learning (DL) model capable of producing a priori, high-fidelity predictions of composition- and time-dependent hydration kinetics and phase assemblage development in [PC + SCM] pastes. The DL is coupled with: 1) A fast Fourier transformation algorithm that reduces the dimensionality of training datasets (e.g., kinetic datasets), thus allowing the model to learn intrinsic composition-property correlations from a small database; and 2) A thermodynamic model that constrains the model, thus ensuring that predictions do not violate fundamental materials laws. The training and outcomes of the DL are ultimately leveraged to develop a simple, easy-to-use, closed-form analytical model capable of predicting hydration kinetics and phase assemblage development in [PC + SCM] pastes, using their initial composition and mixture design as inputs.
Introduction
Concrete–a mixture of Portland cement (PC); water; sand; and stone–is the principal material used in the construction of all forms of physical infrastructure; and, more generally, the built environment. At the current global level of production—∼4.5 gigatonnes (Gt) every year (; ; ; )—PC requires 11•1018J of thermal energy; (; ; ; ; ); which is equivalent to the energy generated from the combustion of ∼1.3 billion barrels of crude oil. (; ; ; ). When we account for emission of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, the statistics exacerbate alarmingly: (; ; ): PC’s production-and-use accounts for ∼9% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions. (; ; ). As the global population rises to 10 billion by 2050, (), the demand for PC concrete infrastructure–and, thus, the concomitant energy demand and CO2 emissions–are expected to continually increase in the future.
To alleviate the energy-intensity and carbon footprint of PC’s production-and-use, the construction community has emphasized partial substitution of PC (up to 60%mass) with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs: limestone; quartz; metakaolin; fly ash; slag; etc. (; ; ; ; ; )). However, much research is still required to comprehensively understand and describe the underlying composition-reaction-microstructure-property correlations in low-PC or [PC + SCM] binders (i.e., pastes; mortars; and concretes). Such understanding–when distilled down to theories, and subsequently, as closed-form mathematical equations–would offer the ability to produce a priori predictions of binders’ properties, just using their compositions (plus a few other easy-to-measure attributes, e.g., mixture proportion and fineness of precursor materials) as inputs. This would be greatly beneficial, as it would substantially reduce the time and cost of conducting experiments to determine the binders’ properties; and would allow end-users to manipulate (e.g., enhance) the binders’ properties by simply finetuning their composition.
While the needs and benefits of a priori predictions of cementitious binders’ properties (from their compositions) are clear, developing theory-based models that are actually capable of producing accurate predictions is not straightforward. This is largely because, in all PC-based binders (e.g., plain paste [PC + SCM] paste; etc.), the development of properties (e.g., strength) is dictated by the hydration of PC, a complex process involving the reaction of PC with water. (). The aforesaid complexity–which has, in effect, stymied the development of accurate, predictive models–arises from the presence of numerous anhydrous (i.e., unreacted) and hydrated phases (i.e., hydration products) within the binder at any given age (; ; ). A typical, commercial PC comprises C3S, C2S, C3A, and C4AF (plus C$H2)—where: C = CaO; S = SiO2; A = Al2O3; $ = SO3; F = Fe2O3; and H = H2O–and all of these phases concurrently undergo hydration at distinct rates upon contact with water, and produce distinct sets of hydrates. (; ). Many past studies (; ; ; ; ; ; ) have attempted to describe PC hydration by investigating simpler variants of PC pastes; for example, pure C3S and C3S-C3A-gypsum pastes. While these studies have provided foundational understanding of intrinsic composition-reaction-microstructure-property correlations in simpler systems, this understanding falls short of explaining hydration (and the ensuing development of microstructure and properties) in low-PC binders. For instance, in [PC + SCM] binders, chemical interactions of the SCM with anhydrous cementitious phases (e.g., C3S; and C3A) and hydrates–that occur alongside the hydration of the anhydrous phases–can be difficult to explain or predict based on our knowledge gained from simpler systems. Complexities resulting from metakaolin–for example–are well-documented in both binary (; ) and ternary pastes; (); as it can act as both a pozzolan and a filler, (; ), as well as contribute to carboaluminate hydrate formation. (; ; ; ).
To predict the properties of a given (PC + SCM) binder (e.g., paste) at a specific age, it is critical to know the binder’s phase assemblage [i.e., volume fractions of anhydrous PC; anhydrous SCMs; hydrates; and capillary pores]; which, in turn, depends on the rate and extent of hydration of PC in the binder. Isothermal calorimetry has emerged as the dominant technique among cement chemists to measure the rate and extent (degree) of hydration of PC in cementitious binders. This technique measures time-resolved exothermic heat release from the hydration of PC (and other endothermic and exothermic reactions, if any). This heat–generally speaking–is much larger in magnitude compared to minor amounts of thermal energy associated with interactions of SCMs with other components of the binder (). The heat evolution (or calorimetry) profiles thus obtained can be processed to determine the degree of reaction (or hydration) of PC in the binder as a function of time. (; ). Figure 1 shows representative isothermal calorimetry profiles (i.e., time-resolved heat flow rate; and cumulative heat release) of a type I/II PC paste. These heat evolution profiles can be coupled with thermodynamic simulations to describe the evolution of a binder’s phase assemblage (i.e., volume fractions of anhydrous PC and SCMs; hydrates; and capillary pores) with respect to time or the degree of hydration of PC. Gibbs Energy Minimization Software (GEMS)—designed for geochemical modeling (; )—has become a popular tool for such thermodynamic simulations. (; ; ). More specifically: isothermal calorimetry results and GEMS simulations–when combined–can describe, with reasonable accuracy, the phase assemblage of a PC-based binder with respect to time; which can be further analyzed to qualitatively or quantitively predict the properties of the binder. With that said, the combination of isothermal calorimetry and GEMS still cannot produce a priori predictions of time-resolved phase assemblage of a new binder. This is because experimental measurement of the new binder’s heat evolution profiles, or PC’s hydration kinetics, would still be required. And, to reiterate the point made earlier, due to our lack of understanding of underlying composition-reaction correlations, state-of-the-art kinetic models (e.g., phase boundary nucleation and growth models with constant, (), or variable growth rate (; ; )) are unable to produce reliable predictions of heat evolution profiles of PC-based systems. Furthermore, although these kinetic models can reproduce heat evolution profiles, experiments are required to determine key parameters (e.g., constant or time-dependent growth rate of CSH) for the models. Consequently, these models are unable to produce a priori predictions of calorimetry profiles of cementitious systems.
FIGURE 1
Recent studies (; ) have shown that machine learning (ML) models–once trained from a sufficiently large calorimetry database–can produce a priori predictions of heat evolution profiles (i.e., time-dependent heat flow rate and cumulative heat release) of PC-based binders, including binary and ternary [PC + SCM] pastes. Despite the successes of these studies, there are still few challenges that need to be addressed. 1) In both studies, (; ), relatively homogenous databases were used to train and test the prediction performance of the ML model. To better explain the aforesaid homogeneous nature of the databases: in one study, (), a database comprised of calorimetry profiles of (synthetic PC + SCM) pastes was used; whereas, in the other, (), a database comprised of calorimetry profiles of (commercial PC + SCM) pastes was used. It is unclear if the prediction performance of the ML models would decline if the two databases were to be combined to produce a singular, highly heterogeneous–yet a moderately low-volume–database. The authors hypothesize that for such a highly heterogeneous database, it is important to reduce the dimensionality (complexity) of the database; to make it easier for the ML models to learn the intrinsic input-output correlations during their training. Fourier transformation–which has historically been used for signal processing, and processing of 2D and 3D images obtained from various techniques (e.g., spectroscopy; (); microstructures generated from micro- and nano-indentation apparatuses; (; ); electron microscopy; (; ) etc.;)—is a promising tool for dimensionality-reduction of numerical databases. This is because of Fourier transformation’s innate ability to maintain most of the information–except for the redundant ones–contained within the database of interest, but in a much simpler, near loss-less format (). Preservation of pertinent information in the database–while reducing the redundancies–not only simplifies the initial transformation, but also the reverse transformation (i.e., from the reduced to the original dimensional form) (). Although Fourier transformation has never been used to treat or process calorimetry databases, the authors hypothesize that its use could substantially enhance the prediction performance of ML models, especially when working with complex, highly heterogeneous database with a relatively small volume. This hypothesis will be tested in this study. 2) The ML models used in the two studies (; ) cited above–while good at producing a priori predictions of heat evolution profiles of [PC + SCM] pastes–were not constrained in any way. The authors hypothesize that if these ML models are constrained–e.g., using thermodynamic rules as constraints–their prediction performance would improve. Importantly, it would be less likely for the models’ predictions to violate basic thermodynamic rules. Testing this hypothesis is another focus of this study. 3) The studies (; ) cited above used ML models that function–more or less–as black-boxes; providing little-to-no insights into the materials laws like closed-form analytical models do. This is a problem, because end-users–who do not have access to ML models–would not gain any benefits from such ML models. It is, thus, important to capitalize on the training of the ML models–and the cause-effect correlations established by them–to develop simple, closed-form analytical models that are accessible to all end-users, irrespective of their knowledge of, or access to, ML models.
In this study, a deep learning (DL) model–trained from a heterogenous, low-volume database of heat evolution profiles of [PC + SCM] pastes–is implemented to produce a priori, high-fidelity predictions of composition- and time-dependent hydration kinetics, and phase assemblage development in (PC + SCM) pastes. The SCMs used in this study include permutations-and-combinations of limestone; quartz; silica fume; and metakaolin. To enhance the prediction performance, the DL model is coupled with: 1) A fast Fourier transformation (FFT) algorithm that reduces the dimensionality of database; and 2) A thermodynamic constraint (obtained from thermodynamic simulations of phase assemblages) that ensures that the predictions do not violate fundamental materials laws. The DL model is used to quantify the influence of each input variable (e.g., contents of SCMs and C3S in the binder) on the resultant properties of the binder; thereby allowing the distinction between consequential and inconsequential variables (in terms of their influence on hydration kinetics). On the premise of this understanding, an easy-to-use, closed-form analytical model is developed; and it is shown that this model–despite its simplicity and fewer input requirements–can produce reliable, a priori predictions of hydration kinetics and phase assemblage development in (PC + SCM) pastes.
Modeling Methods
An original Fourier transform-deep learning (FT-DL) model was developed in this study. The model was trained: first, using a synthetic database for benchmarking and validation (described in section 3.1); and second, using database of isothermal calorimetry profiles of (PC + SCM) pastes (described in section 3.2). The trained model was subsequently employed to produce predictions of outputs in blank data-domains of the synthetic database, and hydration kinetics of new (PC + SCM) pastes. Prediction performance of the model was rigorously appraised by comparing its predictions against actual values. Figure 2 shows the architecture of the FT-DL model. As can be seen, this model unites the fast Fourier transformation (FFT) algorithm with the deep learning (DL) model. Details of the DL model–which is premised on the random forests model that has been in our previous studies (; ; )—can be found in Supplementary Section S1 of Supplementary Information S1
FIGURE 2
The calorimetry database used for training and validation of FT-DL model is composed of: 1) Input variables: physicochemical properties of (PC + SCM) pastes (e.g., mixture design; and physical attributes such as specific surface areas (SSAs) of the PC and SCM measured using static light scattering); and 2) Output: time-resolved heat flow rate profiles, obtained from isothermal calorimetry. First, the model is trained using a large fraction of the database. Prior to the training, dimensionality of the heat flow rate profiles (in the training database) is reduced using the FFT algorithm. Next, during the training, the model finds the underlying correlations between input variables and the FFT-transformed heat flow rate profiles. The trained FT-DL model is then validated against a testing database (the remaining minor fraction of the database that is kept hidden from the model during its training). The model leverages its training to predict the FFT-transformed heat flow rate profiles in relation to physicochemical properties of pastes in the testing database. Finally, the model’s predictions are reverse-transformed, back to time-dependent heat flow rate profiles–akin to those obtained from isothermal calorimetry–using the inverse FFT algorithm. In select cases (e.g., to predict the cumulative heat release of pastes at 24 h; see section 3.3), thermodynamic simulations of phase assemblages in the pastes are used to provide theoretical guidance to the FT-DL model, and to constrain its outputs. These predictions are then compared against experiments. To evaluate the accuracy of predictions produced by the FT-DL model, five statistical parameters–mean absolute error (MAE); mean absolute percentage error (MAPE); root mean squared error (RMSE); Person correlation coefficient (R); and coefficient of determination (R2)—are used. Relevant equations that describe these parameters–the measures of errors in the model’s predictions–can be found in our previous studies. (; ).
Fourier transform (FT) is a signal-processing technique that is used to convert a complex waveform from its original domain (e.g., time) to a representation in the frequency domain, and vice versa. (; ; ). Time-to-frequency domain conversion, when done for a dataset comprising a finite number of data-records spanning a finite range (as opposed to functions, e.g., sin (x), that are continuous over an infinite domain) (), is called discrete-time Fourier transform (DFT; shown in )where Ar is the rth coefficient of the DFT; Xk represents the kth sample of the time series which consists of N samples; ; and N is the number of data points.
In this study, FFT algorithm–a simple and efficient algorithm, designed to obtain discrete-time Fourier transformations of complex datasets–is used to reduce the dimensionality (or complexity) of heat flow rate profiles of [PC + SCM] pastes. (). Compared to competing algorithms (e.g., conventional DFT), FFT is computationally more efficient. This is because the number of required operations is reduced from N2 to N log2N. In general, the FFT algorithm splits the N-point transformation into 2 N/2-point transformations in each step. Then, in an iterative manner, each subset is bifurcated, until the final subset only has a 1-point transformation. Overall, each point requires log2N splits, resulting in Nlog2N operations for generating N-point transformations. The FFT algorithm is described in Eq. (2). Figure 3 shows representative examples of FFT transformation of heat flow rate profiles of pastes. As can be seen, the transformed profiles are much simpler than their original counterparts. Information contained within the transformed profiles (Figure 3B) can be expressed using far fewer number of datapoints than the corresponding original versions (Figure 3A). This is important because such reduction in number of datapoints substantially reduces the time and computational resources (e.g., memory) needed for the FT-DL model’s training. Furthermore, as the number of inflection (i.e., non-differentiable) points in the transformed profiles are significantly lower than in the original ones, it is much easier for the FT-DL model to establish input-output correlations from the transformed profiles as compared to the original ones.
FIGURE 3
Results and Discussion
Validation of the FT-DL Model
The FT-DL model described in section 2.0 differs from the ML models used in our previous studies (; ; ) (i.e., DL model based on random forests) in one key respect: In the FT-DL model, the database is FFT-transformed, prior to the model’s training, so as to reduce the database’s dimensionality; whereas in the DL model, the database is used in its pristine form. In section 2.0, it was argued that the FFT-transformation of the database ensures better training of FT-DL model; thereby, resulting in improvement of its prediction performance. To justify this argument, the prediction performance of the FT-DL model was compared against that of the DL model; using a synthetic database featuring a highly nonlinear, and non-monotonous relationship between the input (X) and the output (Y). Within the database, the complex input-output relationships are represented by a composite mathematical function (Eq. (3)). This function consists of three separate functions: exponential; trigonometric; and hyperbolic. Here, X is the input; Y is the output; and A, B, and C are coefficients ranging from 0-to-2. The synthetic database was populated with ∼20,000 data-series (i.e., Y as a function of X), created by randomly assigning an independent set of coefficients (i.e., randomly chosen values of A, B, and C within the pre-selected range of 0-to-2); while varying X from 0.2 to 4.0 with a step-size of 0.2.75% of data-series were randomly selected from the database, and used to train the FT-DL and DL models. The remaining 25% were used to probe and compare the prediction performances of the two models.
Figure 4 shows representative predictions (of data-series included in the testing database) produced by the DL and FT-DL models; the actual data-series, calculated directly from Eq. (3), are also shown. As can be seen, the prediction performance of the FT-DL model is clearly superior to that of the DL model. This result is in agreement with our previous studies, (; ; ), wherein we have shown that standalone ML models–including the random forests-based DL model–generally exhibit moderate-to-poor prediction performance over datasets that feature highly nonlinear and non-monotonous input-output correlations. The FT-DL model–in which the database is FFT-transformed prior to the model’s training–produces accurate predictions; because the FFT transformation substantially reduces the nonlinearity and non-monotonicity of the database, by transforming it from the original domain to the frequency domain (see Figure 3). Put in another way: the FFT algorithm converts each data-series to a simple, broadly monotonic Y-X relationship; thereby, making it easier for the FT-DL model to establish the underlying mathematical relationship between the output and input. The DL model–on the other hand–must employ brute-force statistical methods to establish Y-X relationship from the highly complex data-series; and, consequently, is susceptible to missing key inflection points (peaks and troughs) and other vicissitudes (e.g., sharp changes in Y occurring over small ranges of X) in the data-series.
FIGURE 4
Prediction of Heat Flow Rate Profiles of Pastes
Results in section 3.1 demonstrate that the FT-DL model can produce accurate predictions; even in data-domains featuring complex input-output correlations. Since Y-X relationships shown in Figure 4 are similar in nature to heat flow rate profiles of (PC + SCM) pastes, it is reasonable to posit that the FT-DL model would produce more accurate predictions of PC hydration kinetics compared to those produced by the DL model. To test this hypothesis, a calorimetry database–comprising heat flow rate profiles of (PC + SCM) pastes–was consolidated from our two prior studies. (; ). The combined database consists of eight types of PCs: one commercial cement (CC; type I/II PC); and seven synthetic cements (SCs). Phase compositions of the 8 PCs are shown in Table 1. The SCMs comprise permutations-and-combinations of quartz (QZ); limestone (LS); metakaolin (MK); and silica fume (SF). Other details of this database are described in Supplementary Section S2.0. The parent database was split into training and testing databases. The training database consisted of 13,416 data-records from 559 (PC + SCM) pastes; and the testing database consisted of 960 data-records from 40 (PC + SCM) pastes. The training database was used for training the FT-DL model (and the DL model for comparison), and optimizing the models’ hyperparameters. The testing database was used to evaluate the prediction performance of the trained models against experimental measurements. Both databases include physicochemical attributes of the pastes as inputs: C3S content (%mass); C2S content (%mass); C3A content (%mass); C4AF content (%mass); C$H2 content (%mass); types (integers) and contents (%mass) of SCMs; specific surface area (SSA) of PC and SCMs (cm (). g−1); and time (hour). The output is time-dependent heat flow rate (mW. gCem−1) from 0-to-24 h, with a 1-h time-interval between successive steps. Pertinent statistical variations in the inputs and outputs of the training and testing databases are shown in Supplemetary Table S1 and Supplemetary Table S2.
TABLE 1
| Cement type | C3S (%mass) | C2S (%mass) | C3A (%mass) | C4AF (%mass) | C$H2 (%mass) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC | 62.37 | 19.35 | 6.24 | 9.35 | 2.69 |
| SC 1 | 90 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 |
| SC 2 | 92 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| SC 3 | 88 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 |
| SC 4 | 80 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 12 |
| SC 5 | 70 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 18 |
| SC 6 | 82 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 6 |
| SC 7 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Compositions of commercial cement (CC) and synthetic cements (SCs) 1–7.
Figure 5 shows representative predictions of heat flow rate profiles produced by the DL and FT-DL models compared against experimental (isothermal calorimetry) measurements. Prediction errors are summarized in Table 2; and depicted graphically in Supplementary Figure S1. As shown in Figure 5 and Table 2, both DL and FT-DL models produce accurate predictions of heat flow rate profiles of (PC + SCM) pastes; with R2 ranging from 0.79 to 0.89, and MAE ranging from 0.32 to 0.58 mW gCem−1. The FT-DL model–across the board–produces more accurate predictions compared to the DL model; validating the hypothesis made earlier in this section. Importantly, the FT-DL model is able to produce accurate a priori predictions of heat flow rates of new (PC + SCM) pastes (i.e., new to the model); even during early ages (i.e., between 1 h and ±2 h of the main hydration peak) when the heat flow rates change rapidly from very high values (during stage I) to very low values (during stage II), and then again to high values (during stage III). Each SCM–depending on its content; physical properties (mainly fineness); and composition–casts unique influence on the heat flow rate profile. For example, fine limestone and fine quartz cause leftward shift of the heat flow rate profile; (); resulting in steeper rise to, and earlier occurrence of, the main hydration peak. In contrast, fine metakaolin, when used to replace ≽20%mass of PC, causes deceleration of PC’s hydration kinetics; (; ; ); which manifests as delayed occurrence of the main hydration peak (although the peak’s intensity is comparable to, and sometimes greater than, that of its plain paste counterpart). Coarse metakaolin also causes deceleration of PC’s hydration rates; but–owing to metakaolin’s slow dissolution kinetics–the deceleration is minor, sometimes imperceptible (). Notwithstanding these disparate influences of SCMs, Figure 5 and Table 2 demonstrate that the FT-DL model can capture the effects of SCM type and physicochemical attributes during its training; and capitalize on this knowledge to produce reliable predictions of hydration behavior of new [PC + SCM] pastes. The DL model–on the other hand–fails to capture the critical inflection points of the heat flow rate profiles. As can be seen in Figure 5, for each of the three (PC + SCM) pastes, DL model’s predictions of the time of occurrence and intensity of the main hydration peak are not accurate. The main hydration peak is a critical juncture of the hydration process; as it is indicative of the period that generally occurs a few hours after the paste sets, and begins to gain strength at a rapid rate due to massive precipitation of hydrates. (; ; ; ). Because of the significance of the main hydration peak, in many prior studies, (; ; ; ; ), the accuracies of kinetic models (and the underlying mechanisms that were implemented within the models) have been adjudicated–almost exclusively–on the basis of whether or not they were able to capture the experimentally-observed main hydration peak. Since the DL model was unable to capture the main hydration peak–whereas the FT-DL model was–it is justified to say that the FT-DL model is the more reliable tool to produce a priori predictions of heat evolution profiles of cementitious binders.
FIGURE 5
TABLE 2
| ML model | R | R2 | MAE | MAPE | RMSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unitless | Unitless | mW. gcem−1 | % | mW. gcem−1 | |
| DL | 0.8935 | 0.7983 | 0.5852 | 41.07 | 0.8211 |
| FT-DL | 0.9454 | 0.8937 | 0.3188 | 18.36 | 0.5289 |
Statistical parameters describing the mean prediction errors (i.e., averaged over a period of 24 h) of DL and FT-DL models. Errors were estimated by comparing predicted heat flow rate profiles of (PC + SCM) pastes against experimentally-measured ones. Time-solved prediction errors are descried in Supplemetary Information.
As stated earlier in section 3.1, the disparity in the prediction performance of the DL model vis-à-vis the FT-DL model arises, mainly, from the FFT algorithm; which is integrated in the latter model, but not in the former. In the FT-DL model, the FFT algorithm–which is used to preprocess the training database prior to the model’s training–substantially reduces the nonlinearity and non-monotonicity of heat flow rate profiles; thereby, reducing their complexity (see Figure 3). This reduction in complexity becomes particularly important when the volume of the training database is low (e.g., the database used in this study, which comprises heat flow rate profiles of only ∼600 pastes). If a large database were used, most ML models–including the DL model–would be able to statistically (i.e., by brute-force) process input-output maps–with both inputs and outputs spanning a wide range of magnitudes–and establish a sufficiently-accurate mathematical correlation between them. But, in a small but complex database, establishing such correlation is not easy. Furthermore, the FFT-transformed heat flow rate profiles contain fewer data-records compared to the original ones; this ensures that the computational resources (e.g., number of processing threads; memory; etc.) required to train the FT-DL model are substantially less than the DL model.
Prediction of Cumulative Heat Release
Results in section 3.2 show that the FT-DL model is a reliable tool for a priori predictions of time-dependent heat flow rate profiles–or hydration kinetics–of (PC + SCM) pastes. These predicted heat flow rate profiles can simply be processed (i.e., integrated with respect to time) to obtain time-dependent cumulative heat release profiles. Cumulative heat release profiles are important for a practical standpoint; as several past studies have shown that the cumulative heat released from PC’s hydration in a binder is directly correlated with the binder’s rheological properties, (; ; ), setting time, (; ), and compressive strength. (; ; ; ). Put in another way: cumulative heat release profiles can be used to roughly estimate important compliance-relevant properties of binders; thus, eliminating the need for costly, cumbersome, and time-consuming experiments. For instance, if the 24-h cumulative heat releases of [PC + SCM] pastes are known, this information can be used to rank and order the pastes on the basis of their 24-h compressive strengths. (; ).
In this study, the predicted heat flow rate profiles of all (PC + SCM) pastes (in the testing database) were processed to obtain cumulative heat release profiles; which were then compared against experiments. It was found–expectedly, as discussed in section 3.1—that the FT-DL model’s predictions were more accurate than those produced by the DL model. However, the prediction errors–as evaluated using the five statistical parameters discussed in section 2.0—were, in general, greater than those associated with predictions of heat flow rate profiles. This is because the prediction errors of heat flow rate profiles accrue as they are integrated to obtain the cumulative heat release profiles. Therefore, to obtain reliable predictions of cumulative heat release–especially at critical ages (e.g., at 24 h, at which the paste’s strength is used as a qualification criterion for use in construction of infrastructure ())—it is important to further finetune the FT-DL model. Towards this end, thermodynamic simulations of phase assemblages in the pastes (summarized below; and in Supplementary Section S3.0 of Supplementary Information S1) were used to provide theoretical guidance to the FT-DL model, and to constrain its outputs.
GEMS (; ) was used to produce thermodynamic simulations of phase assemblage evolution in (PC + SCM) pastes in relation to their mixture design (i.e., composition and mixture proportions of precursors used to formulate the binders). Phase assemblages obtained from the simulations (see Figures 6A,B) reveal the volumes of all reactants (i.e., PC; and SCMs) and products (i.e., hydration products such as C-S-H and ettringite) at increasing degrees of reaction of the main reactant (PC or SCM). (; ). To obtain accurate phase assemblages, it is important to specify the degree of reaction of PC and of the SCM (if it is reactive). PC’s degree of reaction at any given age–for example, at 24 h–can be estimated directly from the cumulative heat release at that age. More specifically: PC’s degree of reaction in each paste at 24 h is equivalent to the ratio of cumulative heat release at 24 h to the enthalpy of hydration of PC. The enthalpy of hydration of each PC (i.e., either the commercial PC, or one of the seven synthetic ones) is calculated as the sum of enthalpies of hydration of each of its constituent phases [C3S ≈ 500 J g−1; C2S ≈ 260 J g−1; C3A (reacting with C$H2) ≈ 1160 J g−1; and C4AF ≈ 725 J g−1 (; ).] multiplied to its respective mass fraction. In this study, four different types of SCMs were used: quartz; limestone; silica fume; and metakaolin. Quartz and limestone dissolve at very slow rates; as, as such, in the thermodynamic simulations, they were assumed to be inert (i.e., degree of reaction at 24 h = 0.0) (; ; ; ). Silica fume and metakaolin–on the other hand–dissolve (albeit slowly), and can partake in chemical interactions with anhydrous cementitious phases (e.g., metakaolin can react with C3A and C$H2) and hydrates (e.g., metakaolin and silica fume can undergo pozzolanic reaction with portlandite, a hydrate present in the paste). (; ; ; ). Therefore, to obtain accurate phase assemblages of metakaolin- and silica fume-containing pastes, it is important to determine their degrees of reaction. In a series of prior studies, (; ; ; ), it has been shown that the degrees of reaction of silica fume and metakaolin range between 5-and-15% within the first 24 h. To determine the precise degrees of reaction at 24 h, GEMS simulations of all [PC + SCM] pastes were employed by varying silica fume’s and metakaolin’s degree of reaction from 5-to15%; while using PC’s degree of reaction at 24 h as calculated from cumulative heat release profiles, and assuming that limestone and quartz are inert. Based on the simulation results (Figure 6B), it was found that across all (PC + silica fume) and (PC + metakaolin) pastes, a degree of reaction of 12% for silica fume and degree of reaction of 6% for metakaolin resulted in a near linear relationship between the cumulative heat release and the volume fraction of hydrates (Figure 6C). We chose specifically to evaluate this relationship to estimate the pozzolanic SCMs’ degrees of reaction, because cumulative heat release of any (PC + SCM) paste is correlated with the extents of reaction of the reactants (i.e., PC and SCM); which, in turn, dictates the amounts (or volume fractions) of the hydrates. In Figure 6C, it should be noted that results pertaining to plain pastes [PC + quartz] pastes, and (PC + limestone) pastes are also included; which justify our assumption that limestone and quartz are inert in the first 24 h. An important aspect of Figure 6C is the generic mathematical equation that describes the relationship between cumulative heat release and volume fraction of hydrates in ∼600 (PC + SCM) pastes. It should be noted that both the cumulative heat and volume fraction of hydrates account for not just the hydration of cement but also cement-SCM interactions. This relationship–in and of itself–is an important outcome; since, it allows researchers to promptly estimate the volume fraction of hydrates in any given (PC + SCM) paste using its 24 h cumulative heat release as the sole input. The volume fraction of hydrates–which is a crude measure of the solid-to-solid connectivity within the paste (; ; ; )—can be used to roughly estimate the compressive strength and porosity of the paste. The authors would like to clarify that the volume fractions of hydrates in (PC + SCM) pastes–shown in Figure 6C–can be predicted directly from the FT-DL model; as opposed to deriving them from GEMS simulations. For this, the FT-DL model needs to be trained using a new database; comprising the same input variables as those described in section 3.2, and the volume fraction of hydrates (estimated from GEMs simulations) as the output. Once trained, the FT-DL model can predict the volume fraction of hydrates in a new (PC + SCM) paste using its mixture proportion and physiochemical attributes as inputs. Therefore, it can be said that the FT-DL model can not only produce reliable, a priori predictions of hydration kinetics but also of phase assemblages of (PC + SCM) pastes.
FIGURE 6
Outcomes of thermodynamic simulations–shown in Figure 6C–allow us to correlate the cumulative heat release (at 24 h) with the volume fraction of hydrates in (PC + SCM) pastes. In this study, this correlation was used as a thermodynamic constraint to guide and regulate the predictions of 24 h cumulative heat release of (PC + SCM) pastes. More specifically, for any given (PC + SCM) paste, the heat flow rate profile–and then the cumulative heat release at 24 h–was predicted using the FT-DL model described in sections 3.1 and 3.2. Next, the predicted value of the 24 h cumulative heat release was compared with the cumulative heat release derived from Figure 6C (using the paste’s phase assemblage (i.e., volume fraction of hydrates at 24 h), calculated from thermodynamic simulations (GEMS), as input]. If the deviation between the two predictions was found to be smaller than 10 J. gcem−1, the prediction from the FT-DL model was selected as the final output. Otherwise, the cumulative heat release from the thermodynamic simulations was selected as final output. Figure 7 compares the predictions of 24-h cumulative release of (PC + SCM) pastes obtained using the unconstrained FT-DL model and the thermodynamically-constrained FT-DL model. The corresponding prediction errors are summarized in Table 3. As can be seen, predictions of 24 h cumulative heat release from the thermodynamically-constrained FT-DL model are significantly more accurate than the unconstrained FT-DL model. This result clarifies that guidance from thermodynamic simulations significantly boosts the ability of the FT-DL model to predict the hydration kinetics of (PC + SCM) pastes. It must be noted that, in Figure 7, the 24 h cumulative heat release of the pastes is used merely as a representative example. The thermodynamically-constrained FT-DL model can be used–in similar fashion–to produce a priori predictions of the cumulative heat release at other ages (0 ≤ age ≤24 h) as well.
FIGURE 7
TABLE 3
| ML model | R | R2 | MAE | MAPE | RMSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unitless | Unitless | J. gcem−1 | % | J. gcem−1 | |
| Unconstrained FT-DL | 0.6935 | 0.4809 | 21.63 | 8.087 | 27.64 |
| Constrained FT-DL | 0.9033 | 0.8161 | 13.24 | 4.887 | 16.79 |
Statistical parameters describing the errors in predictions of 24 h cumulative heat release, as produced by the unconstrained and thermodynamically-constrained FT-DL models.
Discussion
Development of a Closed-form Analytical Model
Results in section 3.0 show that the FT-DL model–especially when integrated with thermodynamic guidance and constraints–can produce reliable, a priori predictions of hydration kinetics and phase assemblages (e.g., volume fraction of hydrates at a given age) of (PC + SCM) pastes. It must, however, be acknowledged that the FT-DL model–while powerful–is not accessible to end-users; especially those who have limited background in computer programming. Hence, it is important that the learnings of the FT-DL model be distilled down to simple, closed-form analytical models that can be used by end-users of all expertise and disciplines. Such distillation of the FT-DL model into an analytical model also improves the interpretability of the outcomes; as in an analytical model the correlation between each input (e.g., physicochemical properties of binders’ precursors) and the output (i.e., cumulative heat release at 24 h) is clearly outlined in the form of a mathematical equation.
To develop a reliable analytical model, it is crucial to select input variables that cast significant influence on the output, while disregarding those which are largely inconsequential. The “DL” part of the FT-DL model is important in this context; because, it can statistically evaluate–in the form of Gini scores (; ; ; ; )—the influence of each variable on the output. Results from this analysis are shown in Figure 8. Here, the contents of C$H2, C3S, C3A, and SCM cast the strongest influence on the 24 h cumulative release. C3S–being the major phase in PC ()—is expectedly an influential factor. C3A and C$H2 are also influential because these two phases react with each other (and water) vigorously within minutes of mixing; thereby releasing heat at a rapid rate for few hours, followed by relatively slow, near-constant rate of heat release. (; ; ). SCM content and specific surface area (SSA) are also influential; as these variables dictate the ability of the SCM to influence the overall hydration kinetics through the filler effect, and/or pozzolanic effect, and/or chemical interactions with other paste components. (; ; ; ). C2S and C4AF react very slowly with water in the first 24 h; thus, their effects on the overall hydration kinetics are not significant. (; ). SSA of PC is known to profoundly affect its hydration kinetics (). However, owing to limited variability in SSA of PC in the database used in this study, it is evaluated as the less influential. SCM type is appraised to be the least important variable. This–once again–is because only two types of SCMs (fillers and pozzolans) were used in this study.
FIGURE 8
Variable importance, shown in Figure 8, was used to guide the mathematical form of the closed-form analytical model. SCM type, C2S content, and C4AF content were excluded due to their low variable importance; but the other influential input variables were included. C$H2 content and C3S content were assigned greater weight; by raising them to the second power. The general form of the analytical model, thus developed, is shown in Eq. (3). Here, CH is the cumulative heat release at 24 h (J.gcem−1); Ci is the coefficient for each input variable; Mi is mass percentage of component i (%mass); and Aj is SSA of component j (cm ().g−1).
In the analytical model, six coefficients and one constant need to be optimized. Those coefficients were optimized for two scenarios: 1) (PC + pozzolan) pastes; and 2) (PC + filler) pastes; wherein silica fume and metakaolin are treated as pozzolans, and limestone and quartz are treated as fillers (as discussed in section 3.3). A nonlinear, gradient-descent scheme (; ; )—based on the Nelder-Mead multi-dimensional simplex algorithm (; )—was used to optimize the coefficients of the analytical model. The optimal coefficients for (PC + pozzolan) pastes and (PC + filler) pastes are shown in Table 4. Final predictions of the 24 h cumulative heat release of both types of pastes are shown in Figure 9.
TABLE 4
| (PC + pozzolan) pastes | C0 | 166.2189 | C1 | −0.0027 | C2 | 8.7031 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3 | −0.5031 | C4 | 1.4123 | C5 | 0.0106 | |
| C6 | −0.0001 | |||||
| [PC + Filler] pastes | C0 | 135.243 | C1 | 0.0044 | C2 | 5.692 |
| C3 | −0.3137 | C4 | 1.8383 | C5 | 0.0053 | |
| C6 | 0.0014 |
Optimum values of coefficients and the constant for the analytical model shown in Eq. 3. The model can be used to estimate the 24 h cumulative heat release of (PC + pozzolan) pastes and (PC + filler) pastes.
FIGURE 9
As can be seen in Figure 9, the analytical model–despite being much simpler and easier-to-use than its parent model (FT-DL model)—produces accurate predictions (i.e., margin of error within ±6.3%) of 24 h cumulative heat release of (PC + pozzolan) and (PC + filler) pastes. The values of R are 0.81 and 0.90 for (PC + pozzolan) pastes and (PC + filler) pastes, respectively; which are commensurable to that of the FT-DL model (R ≈ 0.90). Importantly, the analytical model has a simple polynomial form; which can be coded into any spreadsheet software by end-users of all disciplines and expertise to produce a priori predictions of heat evolution behavior of (PC + SCM) pastes; using just a few mixture design parameters as inputs. It is worth pointing out that in Figure 9, the 24 h cumulative heat release is used as a representative example. Using the method described in this section, cumulative heat release at other critical ages can also be predicted. Furthermore, the cumulative heat release predictions produced by the analytical model can be plugged into the equation shown in Figure 6C to directly estimate the volume fraction of hydrates in the (PC + SCM) pastes. Therefore, as a standalone prediction tool, the analytical model–although not as sophisticated or accurate as the FT-DL model–can be used for a priori predictions of important aspects of both hydration kinetics and phase assemblage development in PC-based binders.
Conclusion
Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs: e.g., limestone; calcined clays; etc.) are typically used to partially replace Portland cement (PC) in concrete to reduce its energy-intensity and carbon footprint. SCMs–depending on their composition; physical properties (e.g., fineness); and content–cast significant influence on PC’s hydration behavior; thus, affecting nearly all fresh- and mature-state properties of concrete. For decades, researchers have attempted to develop analytical models–premised on theories and mechanisms learned from classical materials science approaches–that would be able to produce a priori predictions of (PC + SCM) binders. While the pursuit of theory-based models is essential for the advancement of our understanding of underlying composition-reaction-microstructure-property correlations in (PC + SCM) binders, our current piecemeal understanding of these correlations has thus far stymied the development of such models.
In recent years, machine learning (ML)—coupled with a large database (i.e., Big data); comprised of experimental measurements, and/or experimentally-validated simulations–has emerged as a promising approach to learn the intrinsic cause-effect correlations in materials, including (PC + SCM) binders (e.g., pastes); and, then, to capitalize on such learnings to predict the properties of new materials by simply using their easy-to-measure physicochemical characteristics as inputs. While promising, widespread use of ML models is hindered because they: 1) Require “Big” data for their training (which is difficult to produce, or mine from literature); and 2) Provide little-to-no insights into the origins of the materials’ behavior/properties (and, thus, are perceived as black boxes).
In this study, an original deep learning (DL) model was developed, with the objective of predicting hydration kinetics (i.e., time-dependent heat flow rate, and cumulative heat release), and phase assemblage development (e.g., volume fraction of hydrates at a specific age) in (PC + SCM) pastes. A fast Fourier transformation (FFT) algorithm was integrated into the model: to reduce the dimensionality of the database used to train the DL model; and to make it easier, and computationally efficient, for the model to learn the input-output correlations from a relatively small database (comprised of reaction behavior of only ∼600 distinct [PC + SCM] pastes). Results obtained from extramural thermodynamic simulations (conducted using GEMS: a free-to-use, and publicly accessible, thermodynamic modeling software) were also integrated into the model: to provide theoretical guidance to the model; and to constrain its outputs, to ensure that they do not violate basic thermodynamic rules. It was shown that the model–i.e., thermodynamically-constrained FT-DL model–produced accurate a priori predictions of hydration behavior and phase assemblage development of (PC + SCM) pastes. The training and outcomes of the FT-DL model were then used to develop a closed-form analytical model. The analytical model–albeit not as sophisticated or accurate as the FT-DL model–was shown to be a simple, easy-to-use prediction tool to produce reliable a priori predictions of important aspects of both hydration kinetics and phase assemblage development in (PC + SCM) binders.
The FT-DL model–and its simpler derivative, the closed-form analytical model–that are presented in this study demonstrate that, even with small data (rather than Big data), reliable predictions of reaction behavior and microstructural evolution (phase assemblage) of cementitious systems are possible. As with any ML model, it is expected that the FT-DL model’s accuracy would improve if/when it is trained with a larger, more diverse Big Data. Such a Big Data/FT-DL platform–if created and disseminated–would give researchers and end-users unprecedented access to data (information); and empower them with reliable prediction (and optimization) tools to tune locally-available–but often overlooked and/or underutilized–materials (e.g., volcanic, and off-specification ash; waste-to-energy residue produced from incineration of municipal waste) to function as CO2-efficient SCMs.
Statements
Data availability statement
The database, machine learning model, thermodynamic model, and code used in this study are available from the corresponding author (AK; kumarad@mst.edu) by request.
Author contributions
SP and RC: Database development and manuscript development TH and JH: Development and validation of ML models; and development of manuscript AK and GS: Manuscript development and review.
Funding
Financial support for this research was provided by: the Leonard Wood Institute (LWI: W911NF-07-2-0062); the National Science Foundation (NSF-CMMI: 1661609; NSF-CMMI: 1932690; and NSF-DMR: 2034856); and the Federal Highway Administration (Award no: 693JJ31950021).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmats.2021.796476/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AntoniM.RossenJ.MartirenaF.ScrivenerK. (2012). Cement Substitution by a Combination of Metakaolin and limestone. Cement Concrete Res.42, 1579–1589. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.09.006
2
BanalaA.KumarA. (2017). Numerical Simulations of Permeability of plain and Blended Cement Pastes. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. Math.9, 67–86. 10.1007/s12572-017-0184-7
3
BazzoniA.MaS.WangQ.ShenX.CantoniM.ScrivenerK. L. (2014). The Effect of Magnesium and Zinc Ions on the Hydration Kinetics of C3 S. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.97, 3684–3693. 10.1111/jace.13156
4
BazzoniA. (2014). Study of Early Hydration Mechanisms of Cement by Means of Electron Microscopy. Lausanne: EPFL.
5
BentzD. P.BarrettT.De la VargaI.WeissW. J. (2012). Relating Compressive Strength to Heat Release in Mortars. Adv. Civ. Eng. Matls.1, 20120002. 10.1520/acem20120002
6
BerglandG. D. (1969). A Guided Tour of the Fast Fourier Transform. IEEE Spectr.6, 41–52. 10.1109/mspec.1969.5213896
7
BerodierE.ScrivenerK. (2014). Understanding the Filler Effect on the Nucleation and Growth of C-S-H. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.97, 3764–3773. 10.1111/jace.13177
8
BiernackiJ. J.BullardJ. W.SantG.BrownK.GlasserF. P.JonesS.et al (2017). Cements in the 21 St century: Challenges, Perspectives, and Opportunities. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.100, 2746–2773. 10.1111/jace.14948
9
BreimanL. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learn.45, 5–32. 10.1023/a:1010933404324
10
BrevalE. (1976). C3A Hydration. Cement Concrete Res.6, 129–137. 10.1016/0008-8846(76)90057-0
11
BullardJ. W. (2008). A Determination of Hydration Mechanisms for Tricalcium Silicate Using a Kinetic Cellular Automaton Model. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.91, 2088–2097. 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02419.x
12
BullardJ. W.JenningsH. M.LivingstonR. A.NonatA.SchererG. W.SchweitzerJ. S.et al (2011). Mechanisms of Cement Hydration. Cement Concrete Res.41, 1208–1223. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.09.011
13
BullardJ. W.SchererG. W.ThomasJ. J. (2015). Time Dependent Driving Forces and the Kinetics of Tricalcium Silicate Hydration. Cement Concrete Res.74, 26–34. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.03.016
14
BuseckP. R.EpelboinY.RimskyA. (1988). Signal Processing of High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscope Images Using Fourier Transforms. Acta Cryst. Sect A.44, 975–986. 10.1107/s0108767388007500
15
Cadavid-GiraldoN.Velez-GallegoM. C.Restrepo-BolandA. (2020). Carbon Emissions Reduction and Financial Effects of a Cap and Tax System on an Operating Supply Chain in the Cement Sector. J. Clean. Prod.275, 122583. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122583
16
CaiR.HanT.LiaoW.HuangJ.LiD.KumarA.et al (2020). Prediction of Surface Chloride Concentration of marine concrete Using Ensemble Machine Learning. Cement Concrete Res.136, 106164. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106164
17
ChenI. A.JuengerM. C. G. (2011). Synthesis and Hydration of Calcium Sulfoaluminate-Belite Cements with Varied Phase Compositions. J. Mater. Sci.46, 2568–2577. 10.1007/s10853-010-5109-9
18
CochranW. T.CooleyJ. W.FavinD. L.HelmsH. D.KaenelR. A.LangW. W.et al (1967). What Is the Fast Fourier Transform?Proc. IEEE55, 1664–1674. 10.1109/proc.1967.5957
19
CookR.HanT.ChildersA.RyckmanC.KhayatK.MaH.et al (2021). Machine Learning for High-Fidelity Prediction of Cement Hydration Kinetics in Blended Systems. Mater. Des.208, 109920. 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109920
20
CookR.HanT.ChildersA.RyckmanC.KhayatK.MaH.et al (2021). Machine Learning for High-Fidelity Prediction of Cement Hydration Kinetics in Blended Systems. Mater. Des.208, 109920. 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109920
21
CookR.LapeyreJ.MaH.KumarA. (2019). Prediction of Compressive Strength of Concrete: Critical Comparison of Performance of a Hybrid Machine Learning Model with Standalone Models. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.31, 04019255. 10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0002902
22
CookR.MaH.KumarA. (2019). Influence of Size‐classified and Slightly Soluble mineral Additives on Hydration of Tricalcium Silicate. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.103, 2764–2779. 10.1111/jace.16936
23
CookR.MaH.OkoronkwoM.SantG.KumarA. (2021). Influence of Water Activity on Belite (β‐C 2 S) Hydration. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.104, 1831–1840. 10.1111/jace.17608
24
CookR. (2020). Studying the Effects of Various Process Parameters on Early Age Hydration of Single- and Multi-phase Cementitious Systems. Rolla, MO, USA: Missouri University of Science and Technology.
25
CooleyJ. W.TukeyJ. W. (1965). An Algorithm for the Machine Calculation of Complex Fourier Series. Math. Comp.19, 297–301. 10.1090/s0025-5718-1965-0178586-1
26
De WeerdtK.HahaM. B.Le SaoutG.KjellsenK. O.JustnesH.LothenbachB. (2011). Hydration Mechanisms of Ternary Portland Cements Containing limestone Powder and Fly Ash. Cement Concrete Res.41, 279–291. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.014
27
DowlingA.O'DwyerJ.AdleyC. C. (2015). Lime in the Limelight. J. Clean. Prod.92, 13–22. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.047
28
DuhamelP.VetterliM. (1990). Fast Fourier Transforms: A Tutorial Review and a State of the Art. Signal. Process.19, 259–299. 10.1016/0165-1684(90)90158-u
29
FerrazD. F.MarthoA. C. R.BurnsE. G.RomanoR. C. O.PileggiR. G. (2020). “Effect of Mixing Procedure on the Rheological Properties and Hydration Kinetics of Portland Cement Paste,” in Rheology and Processing of Construction Materials. Editors MechtcherineV.KhayatK.SecrieruE. (Manhattan, New York City: Springer International Publishing), 311–319. 10.1007/978-3-030-22566-7_36
30
FromherzT. (2005). “SPECTROSCOPY-fourier Transform Spectroscopy,” in Encyclopedia of Modern Optics. Editor GuentherR. D. (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier).
31
GartnerE.HiraoH. (2015). A Review of Alternative Approaches to the Reduction of CO2 Emissions Associated with the Manufacture of the Binder Phase in concrete. Cement Concrete Res.78 (Part A), 126–142. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.04.012
32
HanT.SiddiqueA.KhayatK.HuangJ.KumarA. (2020). An Ensemble Machine Learning Approach for Prediction and Optimization of Modulus of Elasticity of Recycled Aggregate concrete. Construction Building Mater.244, 118271. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118271
33
HanT.Stone-WeissN.HuangJ.GoelA.KumarA. (2020). Machine Learning as a Tool to Design Glasses with Controlled Dissolution for Healthcare Applications. Acta Biomater.107, 286–298. 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.02.037
34
HaoY.WangZ. G.TianJ. F. (1993). A Quantitative Investigation of Fatigue Fracture Surfaces by Using the Fourier Transform Method. Mater. Sci. Eng. A161, 195–200. 10.1016/0921-5093(93)90513-e
35
HeZ.ZhuX.WangJ.MuM.WangY. (2019). Comparison of CO2 Emissions from OPC and Recycled Cement Production. Construction Building Mater.211, 965–973. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.289
36
HigginsR. J. (1976). Fast Fourier Transform: An Introduction with Some Minicomputer Experiments. Am. J. Phys.44, 766–773. 10.1119/1.10128
37
IghaloJ. O.AdeniyiA. G. (2020). A Perspective on Environmental Sustainability in the Cement Industry. Waste Disposal Sustain. Energ.2, 161–164. 10.1007/s42768-020-00043-y
38
JohariM. A. M.BrooksJ. J.KabirS.RivardP. (2011). Influence of Supplementary Cementitious Materials on Engineering Properties of High Strength concrete. Construction Building Mater.25, 2639–2648. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.013
39
JuengerM. C. G.SiddiqueR. (2015). Recent Advances in Understanding the Role of Supplementary Cementitious Materials in concrete. Cement Concrete Res.78 (Part A), 71–80. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.03.018
40
JuengerM. C. G.SnellingsR.BernalS. A. (2019). Supplementary Cementitious Materials: New Sources, Characterization, and Performance Insights. Cement Concrete Res.122, 257–273. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.05.008
41
JuengerM.ProvisJ. L.ElsenJ.MetthesW.HootonR. D.DuchesneJ.et al (2012). Supplementary Cementitious Materials for concrete: Characterization Needs. Mater. Res. Soc. symposia Proc. Mater. Res. Soc.1488, imrc12. Cambridge Univ Press. 10.1557/opl.2012.1536
42
KulikD. A.WagnerT.DmytrievaS. V.KosakowskiG.HingerlF. F.ChudnenkoK. V.et al (2012). GEM-selektor Geochemical Modeling Package: Revised Algorithm and GEMS3K Numerical Kernel for Coupled Simulation Codes. Comput. Geosci.17, 1–24. 10.1007/s10596-012-9310-6
43
KulikD. A.WagnerT.DmytrievaS. V.KosakowskiG.HingerlF. F.ChudnenkoK. V.et al (2013). GEM-selektor Geochemical Modeling Package: Revised Algorithm and GEMS3K Numerical Kernel for Coupled Simulation Codes. Comput. Geosciences17, 1–24. 10.1007/s10596-012-9310-6
44
KumarA.BishnoiS.ScrivenerK. L. (2012). Modelling Early Age Hydration Kinetics of Alite. Cement Concrete Res.42, 903–918. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.03.003
45
KumarA.OeyT.FallaG. P.HenkensiefkenR.NeithalathN.SantG. (2013). A Comparison of Intergrinding and Blending limestone on Reaction and Strength Evolution in Cementitious Materials. Construction Building Mater.43, 428–435. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.032
46
KumarA.OeyT.FalzoneG.HuangJ.BauchyM.BalonisM.et al (2017). The Filler Effect: The Influence of Filler Content and Type on the Hydration Rate of C3S and OPC. J. Am. Chem. Soc.100, 3316–3328. 10.1111/jace.14859
47
KumarA.OeyT.KimS.ThomasD.BadranS.LiJ.et al (2013). Simple Methods to Estimate the Influence of limestone Fillers on Reaction and Property Evolution in Cementitious Materials. Cement and Concrete Composites42, 20–29. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.05.002
48
KurdowskiW. (2014). Cement and concrete Chemistry. New York: Springer.
49
LangeT.ClareS. (2013). “Advancements in concrete Material Sustainability: Supplementary Cementitious Material Development and Pollutant Interaction,”. UT Electronic Theses and Dissertations (Austin, USA: The University of Texas at Austin).
50
LapeyreJ.HanT.WilesB.MaH.HuangJ.SantG.et al (2021). Machine Learning Enables Prompt Prediction of Hydration Kinetics of Multicomponent Cementitious Systems. Sci. Rep.11, 3922. 10.1038/s41598-021-83582-6
51
LapeyreJ.KumarA. (2018). Influence of Pozzolanic Additives on Hydration Mechanisms of Tricalcium Silicate. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.101, 3557–3574. 10.1111/jace.15518
52
LapeyreJ.MaH.KumarA. (2019). Effect of Particle Size Distribution of Metakaolin on Hydration Kinetics of Tricalcium Silicate. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.102, 5976–5988. 10.1111/jace.16467
53
LapeyreJ.MaH.OkoronkwoM.SantG.KumarA. (2020). Influence of Water Activity on Hydration of Tricalcium Aluminate‐calcium Sulfate Systems. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.103, 3851–3870. 10.1111/jace.17046
54
Ley-HernandezA. M.LapeyreJ.CookR.KumarA.FeysD. (2018). Elucidating the Effect of Water-To-Cement Ratio on the Hydration Mechanisms of Cement. ACS Omega3, 5092–5105. 10.1021/acsomega.8b00097
55
LootensD.BentzD. P. (2016). On the Relation of Setting and Early-Age Strength Development to Porosity and Hydration in Cement-Based Materials. Cement and Concrete Composites68, 9–14. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.02.010
56
LothenbachB.KulikD. A.MatscheiT.BalonisM.BaquerizoL.DilnesaB.et al (2019). Cemdata18: A Chemical Thermodynamic Database for Hydrated Portland Cements and Alkali-Activated Materials. Cement Concrete Res.115, 472–506. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.04.018
57
LothenbachB.MatscheiT.MöschnerG.GlasserF. P. (2008). Thermodynamic Modelling of the Effect of Temperature on the Hydration and Porosity of Portland Cement. Cement Concrete Res.38, 1–18. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.017
58
LothenbachB.WinnefeldF. (2006). Thermodynamic Modelling of the Hydration of Portland Cement. Cement Concrete Res.36, 209–226. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.03.001
59
LudwigH.-M.ZhangW. (2015). Research Review of Cement Clinker Chemistry. Cement Concrete Res.78 (Part A), 24–37. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.018
60
MasoeroE.ThomasJ. J.JenningsH. M. (2014). A Reaction Zone Hypothesis for the Effects of Particle Size and Water-To-Cement Ratio on the Early Hydration Kinetics of C3 S. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.97, 967–975. 10.1111/jace.12713
61
McKinnonK. I. M. (1998). Convergence of the Nelder--Mead Simplex Method to a Nonstationary Point. SIAM J. Optim.9, 148–158. 10.1137/s1052623496303482
62
MehdipourI.KumarA.KhayatK. H. (2017). Rheology, Hydration, and Strength Evolution of Interground limestone Cement Containing PCE Dispersant and High Volume Supplementary Cementitious Materials. Mater. Des.127, 54–66. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.061
63
MehtaP. K.MonteiroP. J. (1976). Concrete-microstructure, Properties and Materials. 2006. Utilization of palm Oil Fuel Ash in concrete: A Review. Ney York, USA: McGraw Hill Professional.
64
MengW.KumarA.KhayatK. H. (2019). Effect of Silica Fume and Slump-Retaining Polycarboxylate-Based Dispersant on the Development of Properties of portland Cement Paste. Cement and Concrete Composites99, 181–190. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.03.021
65
MenzeB. H.KelmB. M.MasuchR.HimmelreichU.BachertP.PetrichW.et al (2009). A Comparison of Random forest and its Gini Importance with Standard Chemometric Methods for the Feature Selection and Classification of Spectral Data. BMC Bioinformatics10, 213. 10.1186/1471-2105-10-213
66
MillerM. M. (2013). Lime, United States Geological Survey, 2012 minerals Yearbook. Reston, VA: USGS.
67
NelderJ. A.MeadR. (1965). A Simplex Method for Function Minimization. Comput. J.7, 308–313. 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308
68
OeyT.KumarA.BullardJ. W.NeithalathN.SantG. (2013). The Filler Effect: The Influence of Filler Content and Surface Area on Cementitious Reaction Rates. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.96, 1978–1990. 10.1111/jace.12264
69
OeyT.KumarA.FalzoneG.HuangJ.KennisonS.BauchyM.et al (2016). The Influence of Water Activity on the Hydration Rate of Tricalcium Silicate. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.99, 2481–2492. 10.1111/jace.14181
70
PassojaD.PsiodaA. (1981). Fourier Transform Techniques- Fracture and Fatigue. ASTM STP733, 355.
71
QuennozA.ScrivenerK. L. (2012). Hydration of C3A-gypsum Systems. Cement Concrete Res.42, 1032–1041. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.04.005
72
RamezanianpourA. M.HootonR. D. (2014). A Study on Hydration, Compressive Strength, and Porosity of Portland-limestone Cement Mixes Containing SCMs. Cement and Concrete Composites51, 1–13. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.03.006
73
SchererG. W.ZhangJ.ThomasJ. J. (2012). Nucleation and Growth Models for Hydration of Cement. Cement Concrete Res.42, 982–993. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.03.019
74
SchneiderM. (2015). Process Technology for Efficient and Sustainable Cement Production. Cement Concrete Res.78 (Part A), 14–23. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.014
75
SchneiderM.RomerM.TschudinM.BolioH. (2011). Sustainable Cement Production-Present and Future. Cement Concrete Res.41, 642–650. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019
76
SchorchtF. (2013). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Production of Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide: Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Ispra, Italy: EU Science Hub - European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/reference-reports/best-available-techniques-bat-reference-document-production-cement-lime-and-magnesium-oxide.
77
ScrivenerK. L.JuillandP.MonteiroP. J. M. (2015). Advances in Understanding Hydration of Portland Cement. Cement Concrete Res.78, 38–56. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.025
78
ScrivenerK.MartirenaF.BishnoiS.MaityS. (2018). Calcined clay limestone Cements (LC3). Cement Concrete Res.114, 49–56. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.08.017
79
TaylorA.HamiltonT.IIINanniA. (2015). The Reinforced concrete Design Handbook: A Companion to ACI. volume 1. Michigan, United States: ACI, 318–414.
80
TaylorH. F. (1997). Cement Chemistry. London, UK: Thomas Telford.
81
ThomasJ. J. (2007). A New Approach to Modeling the Nucleation and Growth Kinetics of Tricalcium Silicate Hydration. J. Am. Ceram. Soc.90, 3282–3288. 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2007.01858.x
82
ThomasJ. J.BiernackiJ. J.BullardJ. W.BishnoiS.DoladoJ. S.SchererG. W.et al (2011). Modeling and Simulation of Cement Hydration Kinetics and Microstructure Development. Cement Concrete Res.41, 1257–1278. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.10.004
83
United Nations (2019). Growing at a Slower Pace, World Population Is Expected to Reach 9.7 Billion in 2050 and Could Peak at Nearly 11 Billion Around 2100 | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html.
84
VanceK.AguayoM.OeyT.SantG.NeithalathN. (2013). Hydration and Strength Development in Ternary portland Cement Blends Containing limestone and Fly Ash or Metakaolin. Cement and Concrete Composites39, 93–103. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.03.028
85
VanceK.KumarA.SantG.NeithalathN. (2013). The Rheological Properties of Ternary Binders Containing Portland Cement, limestone, and Metakaolin or Fly Ash. Cement Concrete Res.52, 196–207. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.07.007
86
VovkA. I. (2000). Hydration of Tricalcium Aluminate C3A and C3A-gypsum Mixtures in the Presence of Surfacants: Adsorption or Surface Phase Formation?Colloid J.62, 24–31.
87
WagnerT.KulikD. A.HingerlF. F.DmytrievaS. V. (2012). GEM-selektor Geochemical Modeling Package: TSolMod Library and Data Interface for Multicomponent Phase Models. Can. Mineral.50, 1173–1195. 10.3749/canmin.50.5.1173
88
XuX.HanT.HuangJ.KrugerA. A.KumarA.GoelA. (2021). Machine Learning Enabled Models to Predict Sulfur Solubility in Nuclear Waste Glasses. ACS Appl. Mater. Inter.13, 53375–53387. 10.1021/acsami.1c10359
89
ZalzaleM.McDonaldP. J. (2012). Lattice Boltzmann Simulations of the Permeability and Capillary Adsorption of Cement Model Microstructures. Cement Concrete Res.42, 1601–1610. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.09.003
90
ZalzaleM.McDonaldP. J.ScrivenerK. L. (2013). A 3D Lattice Boltzmann Effective media Study: Understanding the Role of C-S-H and Water Saturation on the Permeability of Cement Paste. Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng.21, 085016. 10.1088/0965-0393/21/8/085016
91
ZengY.LiuZ.WuW.XuF.ShiJ. (2016). Combining Scanning Electron Microscopy and Fast Fourier Transform for Characterizing Mesopore and Defect Structures in Mesoporous Materials. Microporous Mesoporous Mater.220, 163–167. 10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.09.001
Summary
Keywords
deep learning, sustaianability, hydration kinetic, prediction, thermodynamics
Citation
Han T, Ponduru SA, Cook R, Huang J, Sant G and Kumar A (2022) A Deep Learning Approach to Design and Discover Sustainable Cementitious Binders: Strategies to Learn From Small Databases and Develop Closed-form Analytical Models. Front. Mater. 8:796476. doi: 10.3389/fmats.2021.796476
Received
16 October 2021
Accepted
02 December 2021
Published
04 January 2022
Volume
8 - 2021
Edited by
John L. Provis, The University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Neven Ukrainczyk, Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany
Qiu Li, Wuhan University of Technology, China
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Han, Ponduru, Cook, Huang, Sant and Kumar.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Aditya Kumar, kumarad@mst.edu; Gaurav Sant, gsant@ucla.edu
This article was submitted to Structural Materials, a section of the journal Frontiers in Materials
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.