Skip to main content
Log in

Strength retrieval of artificially cemented bauxite residue using machine learning: an alternative design approach based on response surface methodology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to propose an alternative artificial neural network model based on response surface methodology over conventional approach to estimate the unconfined compressive strength of artificially cemented bauxite residue. The artificial neural network model uses molding moisture content (w), curing time (t) and porosity/volumetric lime (η/Lv′) as input parameters and unconfined compressive strength as the output parameter. Bayesian regularization as training function with sigmoid and pure linear at hidden and output layers is used for modeling the artificial neural network. The proposed response surface methodology designed ANN model is comparable with the conventional designed ANN model and can be used effectively with significantly less number of data set. Sensitivity analysis, to make out the significant input factors based on connection-weight approach, is also discussed. Further, neural interpretation diagram is incorporated to study the effects of individual input parameters over the response. Finally, a predictive equation is presented based on response surface methodology designed artificial neural network model for the range of parameters studied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AAE:

Average absolute error

ANN:

Artificial neural network

BBDANN:

Box–Behnken designed ANN

CCC:

Circumscribed central composite

CCDANN:

Central composite designed ANN

CONVDANN:

Conventional designed ANN

FCCD:

Face-centered composite design

FFBPANN:

Feed forward back propagation artificial neural network

FIS:

Fuzzy interface system

GA:

Genetic algorithms

ICC:

Inscribed central composite

MAE:

Maximum absolute error

MAPE:

Mean absolute percentage error

MSE:

Mean square error

OFAT:

One factor at time

RMSE:

Root-mean-square error

RSM:

Response surface methodology

SEM:

Scanning electron micrograph

SVM:

Support vector machine

trainbr:

Bayesian regularization training function

UCS:

Unconfined compressive strength (qu)

XRD:

X-ray diffraction

b hk :

Bias at the kth neuron in the hidden layer

b o :

Bias at the output layer

H :

Number of hidden layers

K :

Number of neurons

L :

Lime content

m :

Number of hidden neurons

η/L v′ :

Porosity/volumetric lime ratio

q u :

Measured unconfined compressive strength (UCS)

q umax :

Predicted maximum unconfined compressive strength

q umin :

Predicted minimum unconfined compressive strength

q up :

Predicted unconfined compressive strength

R 2 :

Coefficient of correlation (R-squared)

q un :

Normalized predicted unconfined compressive strength

t :

Curing time

w :

Moisture content

w ik :

Connection weight between ith input variable and kth neuron in hidden layer

w k :

Connection weight between kth neuron in hidden layer and single output neuron

X i :

Normalized input variable i

f :

Activation function

γ d :

Dry density of the specimen

Z :

Number of input factors

G L :

Specific gravity of lime

G RM :

Specific gravity of bauxite residue

γ w :

Density of water

References

  1. Li J, Xu L, Sun P, Zhai P, Chen X, Zhang H et al (2017) Novel application of red mud: Facile hydrothermal-thermal conversion synthesis of hierarchical porous AlOOH and Al2O3 microspheres as adsorbents for dye removal. Chem Eng J 321(Supplement C):622–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sutar H, Mishra SC, Sahoo SK, Maharana H (2014) Progress of bauxite residue utilization: an overview. Am Chem Sci J 4(3):255–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Khale D, Chaudhary R (2007) Mechanism of geopolymerization and factors influencing its development: a review. J Mater Sci 42(3):729–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Klauber C, Gräfe M, Power G (2011) Bauxite residue issues: II. options for residue utilization. Hydrometallurgy 108(1):11–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu R-X, Poon C-S (2016) Utilization of red mud derived from bauxite in self-compacting concrete. J Clean Prod 112:384–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Thakur R, Sant B (1983) Utilization of red mud. 2. Recovery of alkali, iron, aluminum, titanium and other constituents and the pollution problems. J Sci Ind Res 42(8):456–469

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vangelatos I, Angelopoulos G, Boufounos D (2009) Utilization of ferroalumina as raw material in the production of ordinary portland cement. J Hazard Mater 168(1):473–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Satayanarayana P, Naidu G, Adiseshu S, Rao C (2012) Characterization of lime stabilized redmud mix for feasibility in road construction. Int J Eng Res Dev 3(7):20–26

    Google Scholar 

  9. Deelwal K, Dharavath K, Kulshreshtha M (2014) Evaluation of characteristic properties of bauxite residue for possible use as a geotechnical material in civil construction. Int J Adv Eng Technol 7(3):1053–1059

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kushwaha S, Kishan D (2016) Stabilization of bauxite residue by lime and gypsum and investigating its possible use in geoenvironmental engineering. Geo Chic 2016:978–988

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sabat AK, Mohanta S (2015) Efficacy of dolime fine stabilized bauxite residue-fly ash mixes as subgrade material. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 10(14):5918–5923

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar S, Prasad A (2017) Parameters controlling strength of red mud-lime mix. Eur J Environ Civil Eng 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1304280

  13. Mozumder RA, Laskar AI (2015) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of geopolymer stabilized clayey soil using artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 69:291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Narendra B, Sivapullaiah P, Suresh S, Omkar S (2006) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of soft grounds using computation[20]al intelligence techniques: a comparative study. Comput Geotech 33(3):196–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Das SK, Samui P, Sabat AK (2011) Application of artificial intelligence to maximum dry density and unconfined compressive strength of cement stabilized soil. Geotech Geol Eng 29(3):329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Güllü H, Fedakar HI (2017) On the prediction of unconfined compressive strength of silty soil stabilized with bottom ash, jute and steel fibers via artificial intelligence. Geomech Eng 12(3):441–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Suman S, Mahamaya M, Das SK (2016) Prediction of maximum dry density and unconfined compressive strength of cement stabilised soil using artificial intelligence techniques. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(2):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kalkan E, Akbulut S, Tortum A, Celik S (2009) Prediction of the unconfined compressive strength of compacted granular soils by using inference systems. Environ Geol 58(7):1429–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Besalatpour A, Hajabbasi M, Ayoubi S, Afyuni M, Jalalian A, Schulin R (2012) Soil shear strength prediction using intelligent systems: artificial neural networks and an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 58(2):149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sharma LK, Singh R, Umrao RK, Sharma KM, Singh TN (2017) Evaluating the modulus of elasticity of soil using soft computing system. Eng Comput 33(3):497–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sakizadeh M, Mirzaei R, Ghorbani H (2017) Support vector machine and artificial neural network to model soil pollution: a case study in Semnan Province, Iran. Neural Comput Appl 28(11):3229–3238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moayedi H, Rezaei A (2017) An artificial neural network approach for under-reamed piles subjected to uplift forces in dry sand. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-2990-z

  23. Erzin Y, Gul TO (2014) The use of neural networks for the prediction of the settlement of one-way footings on cohesionless soils based on standard penetration test. Neural Comput Appl 24(3):891–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yilmaz I, Marschalko M, Bednarik M, Kaynar O, Fojtova L (2012) Neural computing models for prediction of permeability coefficient of coarse-grained soils. Neural Comput Appl 21(5):957–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Erzin Y, Turkoz D (2016) Use of neural networks for the prediction of the CBR value of some Aegean sands. Neural Comput Appl 27(5):1415–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Erzin Y, Ecemis N (2017) The use of neural networks for the prediction of cone penetration resistance of silty sands. Neural Comput Appl 28(1):727–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Edincliler A, Cabalar AF, Cagatay A, Cevik A (2012) Triaxial compression behavior of sand and tire wastes using neural networks. Neural Comput Appl 21(3):441–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ikizler SB, Vekli M, Dogan E, Aytekin M, Kocabas F (2014) Prediction of swelling pressures of expansive soils using soft computing methods. Neural Comput Appl 24(2):473–485

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Tsai H-C, Tyan Y-Y, Wu Y-W, Lin Y-H (2013) Determining ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations using a genetic programming system. Neural Comput Appl 23(7):2073–2084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Buragohain M, Mahanta C (2008) A novel approach for ANFIS modelling based on full factorial design. Appl Soft Comput 8(1):609–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Güllü H, Fedakar Hİ (2017) Response surface methodology for optimization of stabilizer dosage rates of marginal sand stabilized with sludge ash and fiber based on UCS performances. KSCE J Civil Eng 21(5):1717–1727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Güllü H, Fedakar Hİ (2016) Use of factorial experimental approach and effect size on the CBR testing results for the usable dosages of wastewater sludge ash with coarse-grained material. Eur J Environ Civil Eng 22(1):42–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dutta JR, Dutta PK, Banerjee R (2004) Optimization of culture parameters for extracellular protease production from a newly isolated Pseudomonas sp. using response surface and artificial neural network models. Process Biochem 39(12):2193–2198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Olgun M (2013) The effects and optimization of additives for expansive clays under freeze–thaw conditions. Cold Reg Sci Technol 93:36–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bayramov F, Taşdemir C, Taşdemir M (2004) Optimisation of steel fibre reinforced concretes by means of statistical response surface method. Cement Concr Compos 26(6):665–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chavalparit O, Ongwandee M (2009) Optimizing electrocoagulation process for the treatment of biodiesel wastewater using response surface methodology. J Environ Sci 21(11):1491–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Güneyisi E, Gesoğlu M, Algın Z, Mermerdaş K (2014) Optimization of concrete mixture with hybrid blends of metakaolin and fly ash using response surface method. Compos B Eng 60:707–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kobya M, Demirbas E, Bayramoglu M, Sensoy M (2011) Optimization of electrocoagulation process for the treatment of metal cutting wastewaters with response surface methodology. Water Air Soil Pollut 215(1–4):399–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Murugesan K, Dhamija A, Nam I-H, Kim Y-M, Chang Y-S (2007) Decolourization of reactive black 5 by laccase: optimization by response surface methodology. Dyes Pigments 75(1):176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. ASTM D1633-00 (2000) Standard test method for compressive strength of molded soil-cement cylinders. ASTM International. West Conshohocken. https://compass.astm.org/EDIT/html_annot.cgi?D1633+17. Accessed 15 Apr 2017

  41. Gupta D, Kumar P, Mishra V, Prasad R, Dikshit P, Dwivedi S (2015) Bistatic measurements for the estimation of rice crop variables using artificial neural network. Adv Space Res 55(6):1613–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw 2(5):359–366

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Witek-Krowiak A, Chojnacka K, Podstawczyk D, Dawiec A, Pokomeda K (2014) Application of response surface methodology and artificial neural network methods in modelling and optimization of biosorption process. Biores Technol 160:150–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Salchenberger LM, Cinar E, Lash NA (1992) Neural networks: a new tool for predicting thrift failures. Decis Sci 23(4):899–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Boger Z, Guterman H (1997) Knowledge extraction from artificial neural network models. Systems, man, and cybernetics. In: 1997 IEEE international conference on computational cybernetics and simulation, pp 3030–3035. IEEE

  46. Sheela KG, Deepa SN (2013) Review on methods to fix number of hidden neurons in neural networks. Math Probl Eng 425740:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shibata K, Ikeda Y (2009) Effect of number of hidden neurons on learning in large-scale layered neural networks. In: ICCAS-SICE, 2009, pp 5008–5013. IEEE

  48. Xu S, Chen L (2008) A novel approach for determining the optimal number of hidden layer neurons for FNN’s and its application in data mining. In: 5th international conference on information technology and applications (ICITA 2008), pp 683–686

  49. Murata N, Yoshizawa S (1994) Amari S-i. Network information criterion-determining the number of hidden units for an artificial neural network model. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(6):865–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kulkarni P, Londhe S, Deo M (2017) Artificial neural networks for construction management: a review. Soft Comput Civil Eng 1(2):70–88

    Google Scholar 

  51. Consoli NC, da Silva Lopes L Jr, Heineck KS (2009) Key parameters for the strength control of lime stabilized soils. J Mater Civ Eng 21(5):210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wei TK, Manickam S (2012) Response Surface Methodology, an effective strategy in the optimization of the generation of curcumin-loaded micelles. Asia Pac J Chem Eng 7:S125–S133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Miličević I, Šipoš TK (2017) Prediction of properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Građevinar 69(05):347–357

    Google Scholar 

  54. David FW (1992) Contouring: a guide to the analysis and display of spatial data with programs on diskette, 1st edn. Computer methods in the geosciences. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York

  55. Das SK, Basudhar PK (2006) Undrained lateral load capacity of piles in clay using artificial neural network. Comput Geotech 33(8):454–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sujeet Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest with any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 54 kb)

Appendix A

Appendix A

1.1 Calculation of volumetric lime content (L v) and porosity of artificially cemented bauxite residue

In the present study, the following procedure has been followed:

  1. a.

    The amount of lime for each mixture was calculated based on the mass of dry bauxite residue.

  2. b.

    The dry density of the specimens was calculated as the dry mass of the bauxite residue and lime divided by the total volume of the sample.

1.2 Volumetric lime content (L V)

Defined as volume of lime with respect to total volume/volume of specimen and expressed in percentage.

Suppose,

We take 100 gm of bauxite residue and L gm of lime.

Then, total mass (mT) = (100 + L) gm

So,

$$ \begin{aligned} L_{\text{v}} \left( \% \right) & = \frac{\text{Volume of lime}}{\text{Total volume}} = \frac{{\frac{{{\text{Mass of lime}} \left( {m_{L} } \right)}}{{{\text{Density of lime}} (\gamma_{L} )}} }}{{\frac{{{\text{Total mass}} \left( {m_{\text{T}} } \right)}}{{{\text{Density of specimen}}(\gamma_{\text{d}} )}}}} = \frac{{\gamma_{\text{d}} \times m_{L} }}{{G_{\text{L}} \times \gamma_{\text{w}} \times m_{\text{T}} }} \\ & = \frac{{\gamma_{\text{d}} \times L}}{{G_{\text{L}} \times \gamma_{\text{w}} \times \left( {100 + L} \right)}} = \frac{{\gamma_{\text{d}} \times \left( {\frac{L}{100}} \right)}}{{G_{\text{L}} \times \gamma_{\text{w}} \times \left( {1 + \frac{L}{100}} \right)}} = \left[ {\frac{{\frac{{\gamma_{\text{d}} }}{{\left( {1 + \frac{L}{100}} \right)}} \times \left( {\frac{L}{100}} \right)}}{{G_{\text{L}} \times \gamma_{\text{w}} }}} \right] \times 100 \\ \end{aligned} $$
(8)

where: γw = density of the specimen (defined as the weight of the water per its unit volume). γd = dry density of the specimen (defined as the weight of solid in a given volume). L = lime content (defined as the mass of lime with respect to total mass). GL = specific gravity of lime (defined as the ratio of the density of lime solids to the density of water). GRM = specific gravity of bauxite residue (defined as the ratio of the density of bauxite residue solids to the density of water).

Similarly,

Porosity (η) is defined as volume of voids with respect to total volume/volume of specimen and expressed in percentage.So,

$$ \begin{aligned} \eta & = \frac{\text{Volume of voids}}{\text{Total volume}} = \frac{{{\text{Total volume}} {-}{\text{Volume of solids}}}}{\text{Total volume}} = 1 - \frac{\text{Volume of solids}}{\text{Total volume}} \\ & = \frac{\text{Volume of bauxite residue }}{\text{Total volume}} + \frac{\text{Volume of lime}}{\text{Total volume}} \\ \end{aligned} $$

Now,

$$ \frac{\text{Volume of lime}}{\text{Total volume}} = L_{\text{v}} = {\text{Volumetric lime content}} = \left[ {\frac{{\frac{{\gamma_{\text{d}} }}{{\left( {1 + \frac{L}{100}} \right)}} \times \left( {\frac{L}{100}} \right)}}{{G_{\text{L}} \times \gamma_{\text{w}} }}} \right] \times 100 $$

Similarly, from Eq. (9), we can calculate,

$$ \begin{aligned} \frac{\text{Volume of bauxite residue }}{\text{Total volume}} & = \frac{\text{Volume of bauxite residue }}{\text{Total volume}} \\ & = {\text{Volumetric bauxite residue content}} = \left[ {\frac{{\frac{{\gamma_{\text{d}} }}{{\left( {1 + \frac{L}{100}} \right)}} }}{{G_{\text{RM}} \times \gamma_{\text{w}} }}} \right] \times 100 \\ \end{aligned} $$

Finally we get,

$$ \eta = 100 - 100 \left\{ {\left[ {\frac{{\gamma_{\text{d}} }}{{1 + \left( {\frac{L}{100}} \right)}}} \right]\left[ {\frac{1}{{G_{\text{RM }} \gamma_{\text{w}} }} + \frac{{\left( {\frac{L}{100}} \right)}}{{G_{\text{L }} \gamma_{\text{w}} }}} \right]} \right\} $$
(9)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, S., Prasad, A. Strength retrieval of artificially cemented bauxite residue using machine learning: an alternative design approach based on response surface methodology. Neural Comput & Applic 31, 6535–6548 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3482-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3482-5

Keywords

Navigation