Advertisement

Application of PLS Technique to Optimization of the Formulation of a Geo-Eco-Material

  • S. ImanzadehEmail author
  • Armelle Jarno
  • S. Taibi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 991)

Abstract

Earthen construction is one of the most familiar construction method practiced since the ancient times. It has been successfully used around the world. The raw earth material as a geo-eco-material is one of the most abundant, basic building materials. It is low technology, straightforwardly worked with simple tools. It requires very low energy to manufacture through low environmental impact, especially when the material is sourced on construction site. Nowadays, building construction with raw earth materials needs remarkable mechanical performance. For this, a raw earth treatment with binders is one of the techniques used to make better its strength and durability. This paper presents the use of Design of Experiments through D-optimal mixture design as a tool to optimize a raw earth concrete formulation to achieve a desirable compressive strength. A multivariate statistical regression technique of PLS, Partial Least Square projections to latent structures, was chosen to evaluate the design. This PLS technique was selected because of the complicated experimental design data along with different constraints on model. The obtained results illustrate that PLS technique can be a useful tool to improve and optimize a raw earth concrete formulation.

Keywords

Geo-eco-material Unconfined compressive strength Design of experiment PLS technique Optimization Response surface method 

References

  1. 1.
    Zak, P., Ashour, T., Korjenic, A., Korjenic, S., Wu, W.: The influence of natural reinforcement fibers, gypsum and cement on compressive strength of earth bricks materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 106, 179–188 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashour, T., Korjenic, A., Korjenic, S., Wu, W.: Thermal conductivity of unfired earth bricks reinforced by agricultural wastes with cement and gypsum. Energy Build. 104, 139–146 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carmen Jimenez Delgado, M., Canas Guerrero, I.: Earth building in Spain. Constr. Build. Mater. 20, 679–690 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Mukhtar, M., Lasledj, A., Alcover, J.F.: Lime consumption of different clayey soils. Appl. Clay Sci. 95, 133–145 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrero, A., Ortiz, M.C., Sarabia, L.A.: D-optimal experimental design coupled with parallel factor analysis 2 decomposition a tool in determination of triazines in oranges by programmed temperature vaporization-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry when using dispersive-solid phase extraction. J. Chromatogr. A 1288, 111–126 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wold, S., Kettaneh-Wold, N., Skagerberg, B.: Nonlinear PLS modelling. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 7, 53–65 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eriksson, L., Byrne, T., Johansson, E., Trygg, J., Vikstrom, C.: Multi - and megavariate data analysis, basic principal and applications, 3rd edn. Umetrics Academy (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C., Anderson-Cook, C.M.: Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, 4th edn. Wiley, New York (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eriksson, L., Johansson, E., Kettaneh-Wold, N., Wikström, C., Wold, S.: Design of Experiments: Principles and Applications. Umetrics AB, Umeå Learnways AB, Stockholm (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geladi, P., Kowaiski, B.R.: Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial. Anal. Chim. Acta 185, 1–17 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wold, H.: Path Models with Latent Variables: The NIPALS Approach. Academic Press, New York (1975)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoskuldsson, A.: Prediction Methods in Science and Technology. Thor Publishing, Denmark (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, B., Morris, A.J., Martin, E.B.: Generalized partial least squares regression based on the penalized minimum norm projection. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 72, 21–26 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kettaneh-Wold, N.: Analysis of mixture data with partial least squares. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 14, 57–69 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Assallay, A.M., Rogers, C.F., Smalley, I.J., Jefferson, I.F.: Silt. Earth-Sci. Rev. 45, 20–30 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Imanzadeh, S., Hibouche, A., Jarno, A., Taibi, S.: Formulating and optimizing the compressive strength of a raw earth concrete by mixture design. Constr. Build. Mater. 163, 149–159 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eid, J.: New construction material based on raw earth: cracking mechanisms, corrosion phenomena and physico-chemical interactions. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 8189, 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Box, G.E., Stuart Hunter, J., Hunter, W.G.: Statistics for experimenters: design, innovation, and discovery, 2nd edn. Wiley (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fisher, R.A.: The Design of Experiments. Hafner, Libraries Australia, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goupy, J.: Plans d’expériences : les mélanges. DUNOD, Paris (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Normandie Univ., INSA Rouen Normandie, LMNRouenFrance
  2. 2.Normandie Univ., UNIHAVRE, CNRS, LOMCLe HavreFrance

Personalised recommendations