Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Manufacturing process of geopolymer concrete.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Summary of recent literature studies on LCS of FA and SF-based GPC.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Chemical composition of SF, FA, and OPC.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Mix design proportions for FA-SF-based GPC.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 2.

Experimental testing setup for FA and SF-based GP-Mortar: (a) Compressive strength; (b) Splitting Tensile Strength; (c) Residual Flexural; (d) Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

(a) 10 mm steel bar and (b) Weight loss of the steel bar to evaluate corrosion.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

A comprehensive schematic research methodology was adopted for the ANN model.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Structure of the ANN model.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Flow of geopolymer composite mortar.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Slump flow results of FA and SF-based GPC mixes.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Residual flexural strength (RFS) of OPC and FA-SF-based GPC mixes.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Training and validation plots of actual vs predicted values: (a, b) UPV (Km/s); (c, d) CS (MPa); (e, f) STS (MPa); (g, h) CO2 emission (kg/m3).

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Training and validation plots of residual vs predicted values: (a, b) UPV (Km/s); (c, d) CS (MPa); (e, f) STS (MPa); (g, h) CO2 emission (kg/m3).

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Prediction profiler between the multiple parameters vs seven different variables.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Interaction plot of ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) vs different inputs.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Interaction plot of compressive strength (CS) vs different inputs.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Interaction profiler plot of splitting tensile strength (STS) vs different inputs.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Interaction plot of carbon emission (CO2) with respect to seven different variables.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Comparison of CO2 emissions and control costs for each GPC mix.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Average SHAP values predicted through ANNs for the twelve inputs vs four responses.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Table 4.

Flow table results of FA and SF-based geopolymer concrete mixes.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Mass loss measurements of the steel bar for GPC.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Statistical outcomes of the ANN model.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Unit emission (Kg CO2/kg) and unit cost ($/ton) values of the raw materials.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Unit emission (Kg CO2/kg) and unit cost ($/ton) values of the raw materials.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

CO2 emission of FA-SF-based GPC (unit: Kg CO2/m3).

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Cost analysis of FA-SF-based GPC (unit: $/m3).

More »

Table 10 Expand

Table 11.

Ranked feature importance based on mean |SHAP| values.

More »

Table 11 Expand