Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering

Optimizing the Cement Compressive Strength Prediction by Applying

Coupled Linear Models

DIMITRIS TSAMATSOULIS
Halyps Building Materials S.A., Italcementi Group
17th Klm Nat. Rd. Athens – Korinth
GREECE
d.tsamatsoulis@halyps.gr http://www.halyps.gr

Abstract: - This study is aiming to search the optimum settings of two kinds of dynamic linear models
predicting cement typical strength and afterwards to couple them to achieve optimality. The modeling is
based on physical and chemical characteristics and on the early strength of the Portland cement types studied.
More than 3000 sets of industrial results were used for this purpose. Models parameters are calculated using a
moving past period of length TD and are tested in a future period of length TF. The moving period
characterizing the dynamical models attempts to assure that changes in the process are taken into account
during the parameters calculation. Among the models the coupled one is noticeably superior as regards the
mean square residual error. The implementation of these methods in the daily quality control is an
essential factor of quality improvement by maintaining a low variance of typical strength.

Key-Words: - Strength, Model, Cement, Dynamic, Prediction, Quality Control

1 Introduction Osbaeck et al. [5] analyzed the effects of particle

Predicting cement typical compressive strength from
earlier analyses results remains a challenging
research field, despite the huge number of attempts
and the straightforward or more sophisticated
techniques chosen. As typical cement strength is
defined the one measured 28 days after mortar
preparation. This characteristic is thought as the
main indicator of the product quality therefore
worldwide the cement standards apply specifications
with regard to the low and high limit of typical
strength. The stability of the cement quality is
mainly described by the variance of 28 days
strength. Numerous methods and techniques have
been developed in estimating the 28-day cement
strength, selecting as inputs some of the subsequent
characteristics of cement and clinker: clinker
mineral compounds, content of main oxides, cement
fineness, early strength, composition and chemical
analysis. Modeling is mainly based on linear or non-
linear regression algorithmd, fuzzy logic or neural
networks.
Lee [1], in his historical book “The Chemistry of
Cement and Concrete”, referred past attempts to
correlate cement strength with clinker mineral
composition, cement composition and fineness.
Odler in 1991 [2] presented a detailed review of
correlations between cement strength and basic
factors related with physical and chemical properties
of clinker and cement. Zhang et al. [3], Celik [4] and
size distribution and surface area upon Portland
cement strength. Tsivilis et al. [6] and Garcia-
Cassilas et al. [7] developed regression models to
predict the early and typical strength of Portland
cement, pointing out the importance of chemical,
mineralogical and fineness factors on the prediction
of cement strength. Kheder et al. [8] developed a
similar multiple linear regression model, where an
accelerated testing of compressive strength has also
been utilized. In case the linear model was not
sufficient, logarithms of the independent variables
were introduced. Very similar modelling has also
been performed by Abd et al. [9]. Tepecik et al. [10]
presented a multiple linear regression model to
predict the strength of 2, 7 and 28 days of CEM I
42.5 cement. Tsamatsoulis et al. [11] using
multivariable modelling and uncertainty analysis
optimized the SO3 content of cement using
maximization of compressive strength as a criterion.
Meschling et al. [12] applied a power law model
to estimate 28 days compressive strength of CEM I
cement using as parameters a coefficient k and an
exponent b. The mathematical treatment of the
results made it possible to connect parameter k to
the C3S rates of the clinker. Popovics [13]
introduced a mathematical form for the prediction of
concrete strengths obtained at various curing
temperatures from the properties of the cement used.
He considered the hydrations of C3S and C2S as first

ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8 98
 Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering
order reactions. Tsamatsoulis [14] presented a
similar kinetic model of strength development using
different cement and aggregate types. De Siqueira
Tango [15] presented an extrapolation method for
compressive strength prediction of cement products
considering that the typical 28 days strength is a
function only of the two earlier ages’ of 2 and 7 days
strengths. Tsamatsoulis [16] elaborated a
multivariable polynomial model by utilizing the 1
and 7 days early strength, physical and chemical
data to predict the typical strength. The main feature
of the two last contributions [15,16] is the
introduction of the early strength as an independent
variable, despite that this strength is a function of
the physical and chemical structure of cement.
The main feature of the described models is that
they are static: (a) A set of data is used to estimate
the model parameters; (b) the future strength is
computed based on these set of parameters. Relis et
al. [17] developed a linear regression model to
predict the strength of Portland cement by
introducing a time-sequence dynamic correction
procedure to enhance the model accuracy. Their
final model includes constant coefficients of the
linear model and the addition of the dynamical
correction. Tsamatsoulis [18] performed an initial
comparison of the static polynomial equations
referred in [16] and movable time horizon models
based on linear regression methods. The latter
models incorporate the uncertainty due to the time
variability of non involved factors during the
modelling procedure and they can be characterized
as dynamic. In [19] the particularities of these two
classes of models have been investigated in detail.
This study is initially based on the analysis of
Tsamatsoulis in [18, 19] where dynamic linear
models have been utilized to predict the typical
cement strength. The models are characterized as
dynamic because the parameters were estimated
from a moving set of data belonging to a predefined
past time interval. Two classes of equations
developed in these earlier studies: Except physical
and chemical data, the first one utilized the one day
strength results while the second one the results of
seven days strength too. The first model is broadly
utilized in Halyps cement plant to regulate the
cement composition according to the 28 days
strength estimation. The second model is much more
accurate from the first one but due to its much
bigger delay time compared with the first one,
generally it cannot be used for direct control
purposes. However, it constitutes additional
information for the cement composition adjustment.
These two models operate independently. The main
objective of this study is to optimize the first class of
ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8
dynamic linear model as concerns the prediction of
future 28 days strength, by taking into account the
information becoming from the second one. This
latter information is filtered and added to the result
of the first model. The filtering parameters are also
optimized. The above constitutes the coupled linear
model of 28 days strength prediction. The study is
restricted to Portland cement.
2 Experimental
Two Portland cement types produced according to
EN 197-1:2011 were studied: CEM II A-L 42.5 N
and CEM II B-M (P-L) 32.5 N. The first type,
except clinker and gypsum, contains also limestone,
while the second type pozzolane and limestone, as
main components. The modeling is based on the
results of the daily average samples of cement
produced in two cement mills (CM) of Halyps plant.
The analyses made on these samples were the
following:
(i) Residue at 40 μm sieve, R40 (%), measured
with air sieving .
(ii) Specific surface, Sb (cm2/gr), measured
according to EN 196-6.
(iii) Loss on ignition, LOI (%), and insoluble
residue, Ins_Res (%) of the cement
measured according to EN 196-2.
(iv) SO3 (%) measured with X-ray fluorescence.
(v) Compressive strength at 1, 7 and 28 days
(MPa). The preparation, curing and
measurement of the specimens were made
according to the standard EN 196-1.
The modeling predicting the 28-day strength was
based on more than 3400 data sets of cement
fineness, chemical analyses, 1, 7 and 28 days
strength.
3 Mathematical Models Predicting
Strength
The common independent variables in all models
are: LOI, SO3, Ins_Res, R40, Sb. The reason to
utilize the chemical analysis of cement instead of the
cement composition used in the earlier modeling
presented in [18], is to generalize as much as
possible the derived equations: The direct usage of
chemical analysis do not need prior knowledge of
raw materials and clinker composition. Two basic
and independent equations are initially implemented
to predict the 28 days strength. (i) The one where the
one day strength - Str_1- constitutes model variable,
except the set of physical, chemical data. This model
consists of 6 independent variables and is named
Str_28_1. (ii) The second one where the seven days
strength variable –Str_7- is also included and the
99
 Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering
model, named Str_28_7, is a 7 variables linear
equation. (iii) The third model contains all the
independent variables of Str_28_1 and an additional
correction computed from the moving difference of
Str_28_7 and the actual 28 days strength measured
in the date the model is to be applied. The model is
named Str_28_EW. The linear function describing
the three models is given by equation (1).
For all the models the parameters AI, I=(0..N)
were estimated from a moving set of data belonging
to a past time interval of predefined size TD in days
and the model is applied for a determined time
interval TF before the parameters to be recalculated.
The latest date of the time interval TD has two
characteristics: (i) the 28-day strength has been
measured; (ii) its distance from the first date of
prediction is minimal. The parameters AI, I=(0..N)
are computed via regression by minimizing the
objective function given by equation 2.
where Yact = actual 28 days strength, Ycalc = the
calculated one from the model, M = number of data
sets, p = number of independent variables.
3.1 Parameters Estimation Algorithm
The parameters of models Str_28_1, Str_28_7 were
computed by the following algorithm:
(i) At date t a new 28-day strength result appears.
The specimen was prepared 28 days ago. The
production date is in distance t-29 days from the
current date t.
(ii) A time interval of TD days and the samples
belonging to the period [t-29-TD, t-29] are
presumed. The dynamic data set consists of this
population of samples.
(iii) Using multiple regression the model parameters
AI (I=0 .. N) and sres are computed.
(iv) At day t, the chemical and physical results of the
cement produced in the previous day, the 1 day
strength of the cement produced 2 days ago and the
7 days strength of cement produced 8 days ago have
been measured.
(v) With the set of parameters computed in step (iii)
the 28 days strength of cement produced at t-2 and t-
8 days are estimated, by applying the models
Str28_1 and Str28_7 respectively.
(vi) The steps (iv), (v) are repeated up to the date
t+TF-1, where TF is a predetermined time interval
ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8
without new parameters estimation. Consequently
TF is ≥ 1.
(vii) According to step (vi) for the dates belonging
to the interval [t, t+TF-1], the future strength of the
cement produced in the time intervals [t-2, t+TF-3],
[t-8, t+TF-9] is computed according to the equation
of step
(v). Otherwise if the date is greater than t+TF-1, new
parameters estimation is performed starting from
step (i).
(viii) As the time span remains TD, when the results
of TF days are completed, then, the time interval is
moved on by TF days. Thus the future 28 days
strengths are calculated using models applied to data
sets of movable time span TD and in steps of length
TF.
(ix) Parameters TD, TF shall be optimized
considering the following two criteria: (a) minimum
sPast during modeling and (b) minimum error sFutur
during the future application of the models.
(x) For each TD and TF and for each past and future
time interval, a set (AI, sPast, sFutur) is computed from
the samples belonging to this interval. Depending on
TD and TF values, the number of the consecutive sets
(AI, sPast, sFutur) is KTD, the number of data sets in
each past interval I is NTD(I) and in each future
interval J is NTF(J). The mean square residual
errors, sPast, during modeling and sFutur during future
prediction are calculated by equations (3) and (4)
respectively.
The described procedure is a generalization of the
respecting procedure presented in [18] and
constitutes a step forward as to the method
optimization.
3.2 Combination of Linear Models and
Dynamical Correction
The third model – Str_28_EW – constitutes an
extension of Str_28_1 and first of all needs the
definition and implementation of the moving
average filter. The exponentially weighted moving
average (EWMA) technique was used for this
purpose. As analyzed in [16], for a variable X and
discrete time I, the EWMA variable Y is defined by
the procedure:
(i) For time I=0 the initial moving average
Y(0) is expressed by the relation (5):
100
 Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering

Table 1. TD, TF, KTD, NTD, NTF values

(ii) For a parameter λ, where 0 < λ ≤ 1, the TD NTD TF KTD NTF
statistic Y(I) is computed by the recursive 90 99 1 2191 2
formula (6): 120 131 2 1476 4
180 195 5 634 7
240 258 10 311 12
20 153 22
(iii) If λ=1, the moving average values become 30 103 33
equal to the current ones. As long as smaller 60 51 64
λ value is, the rate of change becomes lower 90 34 96
and trends of higher duration can be
revealed.
It is supposed that at time I the actual 28 days
strength is Str_28(I) and the computed one from
Str_28_7 model is Str_28_7(I). The difference
Diff(I) is defined by formula (7).

Afterwards the following procedure is applied:

(i) The moving average of Diff(I), EW_Diff(I),
is calculated by applying equation (6) for a
predefined value of λ.
(ii) The corrected Str_28_1(J) value, named
Str_28_EW(J), is computed from equation Figure 1. MSRE as function of TD for Str_28_1 and
(8), where J≥I. The last date I is attributed Str_28_EW models
to date J.

(iii) The parameters k and λ of the coupled linear

models, constitute model parameters and
need optimization as concerns the mean
square residual error (MSRE) given by
equations (3), (4).

4 Analysis of Results and Discussion

4.1 Analysis of the modeling mean square errors

The modeling and future strength MSRE, were
computed for ranges of TD and TF shown in Table 1.
The above ranges are applied for all the three
models. The average values of KTD, NTD NTF are also
presented. The simulation based on 3441 sets of
industrial data shows that the modeling MSRE is
independent of TF but strong function of TD. The
modeling errors of Str_28_1 and Str_28_EW models
as function of TD are shown in Figure 1. The
respecting errors of Str_28_7 model are
demonstrated in Figure 2. The MSRE of Str_28_EW
model is derived after an optimization of k and λ
parameters. An analysis of this issue follows in the
next paragraphs.
Figure 2. MSRE as function of TD for Str_28_7
model
As shown in the earlier works [18, 19] the
residual errors of Str_8_7 models are noticeably
lower than that of Str_28_1 model. The significant
point observed from Figure 1 is that the Str_28_EW
model derives better MSRE than Str_28_1 model.
The improvement is higher as TD decreases. To
investigate closer the improvement of MSRE
achieved with Str_28_EW model, the frequency
distribution of the sRes of both models for TD=90 and
TF=1 and for all the population of KTD points is
created and shown in Figure 3.

ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8 101

 Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering

(iv) Separate (k, λ) are found for each CEM

Figure 3. Frequency distributions of sRes for TD=90,
TF=1
From Figure 3 it is observed that the distributions
are bimodal as two relative peaks appear in each
one. The above can be attributed to process changes
as the period under consideration is more than nine
years. The distribution of Str_28_EW model is
clearly moved to the left related with the one of
Str_28_1 in all the range of sRes. The above explains
the noticeable improvement of MSRE.
type: The developed software classifies the
data set to CEM A-L 42.5 N or CEM II B-M
32.5 N according to LOI and Ins_Res values
(v) Therefore, four optimum values are
searched, (kAL, λAL, kBM, λBM).
(vi) The steps (i)-(iii) are implemented for each
(TD, TF) and the optimum (kAL, λAL, kBM,
λBM), producing the minimum MSRE of test
sets, is determined.
The optimization technique used needs further
research but the designed one provides the actual
optimum despite it makes calculations to all the
lattice points. Because MSRE is a function of four
parameters cannot be shown in a single drawing. In
Figures 4 and 5, the MSRE as a function of kBM, λBM
is demonstrated for (kAL, λAL) equal to (1, 0.1) and
(0.7, 0.5) respectively, for TD=180 and TF=30.

4.2 Optimization of parameters k and λ

Using neural network terminology, the set of data
during modelling corresponding to a time period
equal to TD, is the “training set” as concerns the
parameters of each model. On the other hand the
future data set, corresponding to a period equal to
TF, is the “test set”. The MSRE of the Str_28_EW
model during modelling is lower that the respecting Figure 4. MSRE of test sets for (kAL, λAL)=(1, 0.1)
of Str_28_1 for the same TD values. This
improvement is due to the optimization of
parameters of equations 6 to 8. Two difficulties
raised during this problem solving: (a) Not any
value of the k, λ, reduces the MSRE but an
optimization technique is needed; (b) a non-linear
regression technique converges usually to local
minimum values, thus it cannot guaranty the
optimum values. Thus the following steps were
implemented:
(i) Minimum and maximum values for k, λ,
kMIN, kMAX, λMIN, λMAX are selected.
(ii) Steps of k, λ change, dk, dλ are also chosen.
(iii) All the rectangular range defined by the
vertices kMIN, kMAX, λMIN, λMAX is scanned Figure 5. MSRE of test sets for (kAL, λAL)=(0.5, 0.7)
with steps dk, dλ and the MSRE during
training and test provided by equations (3) Figures 4, 5 verify that model Str_28_EW
and (4) are determined but as optimization efficiency depends on the optimization of the k, λ
criterion the minimum MSRE of test set is parameters. Generally the optimum is found at low
selected. The optimum k, λ correspond to values of λ and high values of k, in the intervals
the minimum MSRE of test set. (0.1, 0.2) and (0.9, 1.0) correspondingly. From these

ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8 102

 Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering

results it is concluded that a slow EWMA, e.g. small

λ parameter, provides a more effective correction
and amelioration of the prediction.

4.3 Analysis of the mean square errors of test sets

The combination of the Str_28_1 model with the
Str_28_7 one, via the dynamical correction and the
optimized parameters k, λ, provides a coupled model
of predicting cement 28 days strength. This new
linear model, named Str_28_EW contributes to a
noticeable improvement of the predicting ability of
the linear models.
The MSRE of Str_28_1 and Str_28_EW for
TD=90, 120, 180, 240 are demonstrated in Figures 6,
7, while the MSRE of Str_28_7 is shown in 8 for all Figure 8. MSRE of Str_28_7 as function of TF for
TD values. TD=90, 120, 180, 240 days.

Figure 6. MSRE as function of TF for TD=90, 120

days
Table 8. Ratio MSREStr_28_EW/MSREStr_28_1 as
function of TD, TF

The results show that:

Figure 7. MSRE as function of TF for TD=180, 240
days
The ratio MSREStr_28_EW/MSREStr_28_1 is computed
for each (TD, TF) and shown in Figure 9.
- For each TD value as TF decreases the MSRE of
all the three models decrease too.
- The Str_28_EW model results in a severe
reduction of the error compared with the
St_28_1. Especially from Figure 8 it is
concluded that MSRE of Str_28_EW remains
continuously lower than the respecting of
Str_28_1. The average reduction is 6%, reaching
up to 10%.
- The minimum MSRE is achieved with
Str_28_EW and TD=240, TF=1, e.g. these are the
optimum time parameters
5 Conclusions
Predicting the 28-day strength of cement using
linear models constitutes a methodology easily
applied in the daily quality control of the cement
production. The essential is to increase the reliability

ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8 103

 Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering
of these models. For this reason dynamic models
have been elaborated, correlating the 28 days
strength with physical and chemical features and
early strength: The first one named Str_28_1 which
takes into account the strength measured at one day,
and the second one, the Str_28_7, including also the
seven days strength. A third improved model takes
into account the moving average difference between
the Str_28_7 values and the actual ones to correct
the Str_8_1 model. In this way a coupling of the two
independent models is succeeded resulting in a
combined linear model. The software developed
optimizes two parameters per cement type, to
determine the minimum MSQE of the test sets. The
models are applied to a moving data set belonging to
a past time interval of predefined size TD in days, to
calculate the parameters and then to a future time
interval TF. The first set is the training set, while the
second one is the test set.
The main conclusions of the presented analysis
are the following: (a) for each TD value, as TF
decreases the MSRE of the test set decrease too; (b)
the Str_28_EW model results in a severe reduction
of the error compared with the St_28_1. The MSRE
of Str_28_EW remains continuously lower than the
respecting of Str_28_1. The average reduction is
6%, reaching up to 10%. (c) The minimum MSRE is
achieved with Str_28_EW and TD=240, TF=1, e.g.
these are the optimum time parameters. The further
improvement of these techniques can follow the
next directions.
- Combination of the dynamical models with
neural network techniques to investigate
possible synergies.
- Exploitation of the dynamic models to develop
robust controllers based on Model Predictive
Control (MPD) techniques or other advanced
methods.
References:
[1] Lee, F.M., The Chemistry of Cement and
Concrete, 3rd ed. Chemical Publishing Company,
New York, 1971.
[2] Odler, I., Cement Strength, Materials and
Structures, Vol. 24, 1991, pp. 143-157.
[3] Zhang, Y.M. and Napier-Munn, T.J., Effects of
Particle Size Distribution, Surface Area and
Chemical Composition on Portland Cement
Strength, Powder Technology, Vol. 83, 1995, pp.
245-252.
[4] Celik, I.B., The Effects of Particle Size
Distribution and Surface Area upon Cement
Strength Development, Powder Technology,
Vol. 188, 2009, pp. 272-276.
ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8
[5] Osbaeck, B. and Johansen, V., Particle Size
Distribution and Rate of Strength Development
of Portland Cement, Journal of the American
Ceramic Society, Vol. 72, 2005, pp. 197-201.
[6] Tsivilis, S. and Parissakis, G., A Mathematical
Model for the Prediction of Cement Strength,
Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 25, 1995,
pp. 9-14.
[7] García-Casillas, P. E., Martinez, C. A., Montes,
H. and García-Luna, A., Prediction of Portland
Cement Strength Using Statistical Methods,
Materials and Manufacturing Processes, Vol.
22, 2007, pp. 333-336.
[8] Kheder, G. F., Gabban, A.M. and Abid, S.M.,
Mathematical model for the prediction of cement
compressive strength at the ages of 7 and 28
days within 24 hours, Materials and Structures,
Vol. 36, 2003, pp. 693-701.
[9] Abd SM, Zain MFM, Abdul Hamid R. Modeling
the Prediction of Compressive Strength for
Cement and Foam Concrete, Proc. of
International Conference on Construction and
Building Technology, Kuala Lumpur, 2008, pp.
343 – 354.
[10] Tepecik, A., Altin, Z. and Erturan, S.,
Modeling, Compressive Strength of Standard
CEM I 42.5 Cement Produced in Turkey with
Stepwise Regression Method, Journal of
Chemical Society of Pakistan, Vol. 31, 2009, pp.
213-220.
[11] Tsamatsoulis, D. and Nikolakakos, N.,
Optimizing the Sulphates Content of Cement
Using Multivariable Modeling and Uncertainty
Analysis, Chemical and Biochemical
Engineering Quarterly, Vol. 27, 2013, pp. 133-
144.
[12] Mechling, J. M., Lecomte, A. and Diliberto, C.,
Relation between Cement Composition and
Compressive Strength of Pure Pastes, Cement
and Concrete Composites, Vol. 31, 2009, pp.
255-262.
[13] Popovics, S., Model for the Quantitative
Description of the Kinetics of Hardening of
Portland Cements, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 17, 1987, pp. 821-838.
[14] Tsamatsoulis, D., Kinetics of Cement Strength
Development Using Different Types of Cement
and Aggregates, WSEAS Transactions on
Systems, 2009, Vol. 8, pp. 1166 - 1176.
[15] De Siqueira Tango C.E, An extrapolation
method for compressive strength prediction of
hydraulic cement products, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 28, 1998, pp. 969-983.
[16] Tsamatsoulis, D., Control Charts and Models
Predicting Cement Strength: A Strong Tool
104
 Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering

Improving Quality Control of Cement

Production, 16th WSEAS International
Conference on SYSTEMS, Recent Researches in
Circuits and Systems, Kos, Greece, 2012, pp.
136-145.
[17] Relis, M., Ledbetter W.B. and Harris, P.,
Prediction of Mortar-Cube Strength from
Cement Characteristics, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 18, 1988, pp.674-686.
[18] Tsamatsoulis, D., Prediction of cement
strength: analysis and implementation in process
quality control, Journal of Mechanical Behavior
of Materials, Vol. 21, 2012, pp. 81-93.
[19] D. Tsamatsoulis, Application of the static and
dynamic models in predicting the future strength
of pozzolanic cements, 18th International
Conference on Circuits, Systems,
Communications and Computers, Santorini,
Greece, 17-21 July 2014, Latest trends in
Systems vol. I, pp. 138-146.

ISBN: 978-1-61804-279-8 105