Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Statistical Comparisons of Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Models Using RILEM and NU-ITI Databases
Six shrinkage and creep compliance models were evaluated according to the NU-ITI and RILEM databases. The prediction models include ACI 209R-92, B3, GL 2000, CEB MC 90-99, fib MC 2010, and AASHTO 2012. Five statistical methods were used to evaluate the models. The statistical methods include the residual method, the CEB coefficient of variation VCEB, the CEB mean square error FCEB, the CEB mean deviation Mceb, and the new modified coefficient of variation method t»m. Results indicate that for shrinkage predictions, ACI 209R-92 performed best, followed by B3, CEB MC 90-99, fib MC 2010, and GL 2000 models. The AASHTO 2012 model received the lowest ranking. For creep compliance, ACI 209R-92 had the best performance, followed by the B3 and GL 2000 models. The CEB MC 90-99 model ranked third, the fib MC 2010 model ranked fourth, and the AASHTO 2012 model ranked fifth. It should be noted that the data selection criteria and the database used to assess the models can influence the final ranking conclusions. Other statistical methods might also influence the rankings.
Statistical Comparisons of Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Models Using RILEM and NU-ITI Databases
Six shrinkage and creep compliance models were evaluated according to the NU-ITI and RILEM databases. The prediction models include ACI 209R-92, B3, GL 2000, CEB MC 90-99, fib MC 2010, and AASHTO 2012. Five statistical methods were used to evaluate the models. The statistical methods include the residual method, the CEB coefficient of variation VCEB, the CEB mean square error FCEB, the CEB mean deviation Mceb, and the new modified coefficient of variation method t»m. Results indicate that for shrinkage predictions, ACI 209R-92 performed best, followed by B3, CEB MC 90-99, fib MC 2010, and GL 2000 models. The AASHTO 2012 model received the lowest ranking. For creep compliance, ACI 209R-92 had the best performance, followed by the B3 and GL 2000 models. The CEB MC 90-99 model ranked third, the fib MC 2010 model ranked fourth, and the AASHTO 2012 model ranked fifth. It should be noted that the data selection criteria and the database used to assess the models can influence the final ranking conclusions. Other statistical methods might also influence the rankings.
Statistical Comparisons of Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Models Using RILEM and NU-ITI Databases
Akthem Al-Manaseer (Autor:in) / Armando Prado
ACI materials journal ; 112
2015
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Englisch
Features - ACI-RILEM WORKSHOP ON CREEP AND SHRINKAGE
Online Contents | 1999
Unbiased Statistical Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Models
| Online Contents | 2008
Unbiased Statistical Comparison of Creep and Shrinkage Prediction Models
| British Library Online Contents | 2008
4th RILEM International Symposium on Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete Mathematical Modeling
| Springer Verlag | 1986