Design of the Ternary Gypsum-Based Building Composite Using Simplex Optimization

  • M. Doleželová
  • J. Pokorný
  • A. VimmrováEmail author
Part of the Advanced Structured Materials book series (STRUCTMAT, volume 98)


The main disadvantage of gypsum as a building material is the loss of its mechanical properties in a wet environment and therefore the use of pure gypsum is limited only to the interior of buildings. The resistance of gypsum materials against moisture can be improved by the addition of any pozzolanic material and an activator of the pozzolanic reaction to the gypsum. The water-resistant CSH phases are formed by the reaction and the resulting gypsum-based materials evince better behaviour in a wet environment. Several ternary materials, composed of gypsum, lime, several types of pozzolans (silica fume, ground bricks, granulated blast-furnace slag) and silica sand were studied. The best resistance against water was achieved by the material containing silica fume, but its strength was lower than the strength of the other materials. Simplex optimization was used to design a composite with better mechanical properties. Maximum compressive strength was set as the goal of the optimization with regard to the fact, that silica fume is a relatively expensive material. After several steps, an optimized material with greater strength, containing reasonable amount of silica fume was designed.


Gypsum-based composite Silica fume Mechanical properties Optimize Simplex method 



This research was supported by the Czech Science Foundation, Project No. 16-01438S and by the project SGS17/166/OHK1/3T/11.


  1. 1.
    Tesárek, P., Drchalová, J., Kolísko, J., Rovnaníková, P., Černý, R.: Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: study of basic mechanical, hydric and thermal properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 21(7), 1500–1509 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Değirmenci, N.: Utilization of phosphogypsum as raw and calcined material in manufacturing of building products. Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 1857–1862 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gázquez, M.J., Bolívar, J.P., García-Tenorio, R., Vaca, F.: Physicochemical characterization of raw materials and co-products from the titanium dioxide industry. J. Hazard. Mater. 166, 1429–1440 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kostic-Pulek, A., Marinkovic, S., Logar, V., Tomanec, R., Popov, S.: Production of calcium sulphate alpha-hemihydrate from citrogypsum in unheated sulphuric acid solution. Ceram.-Silik. 44, 104–108 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryan, J.: Study of gypsum plasters exposed to fire. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. C 66, 373–387 (1962)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lacasta, A., Haurie, L., Formosa, J., Chimenos, J.: Improvement of passive fire protection in a gypsum panel by adding inorganic fillers: experiment and theory. Appl. Therm. Eng. 31, 3971–3978 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karni, J., Karni, E.: Gypsum in construction: origin and properties. Mater. Struct. 28(9) (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sabir, B., Wild, S., Bai, J.: Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete: a review. Cem. Concr. Compos. 23, 441–454 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraire-Luna, P., Escalante-Garcia, J., Gorokhovsky, A.: Composite systems fluorgypsum–blastfurnance slag–metakaolin, strength and microstructures. Cem. Concr. Res. 36, 1048–1055 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martinez-Aguilar, O., Castro-Borges, P., Escalante-García, J.: Hydraulic binders of Fluorgypsum-Portland cement and blast furnace slag, stability and mechanical properties. Const. Build. Mater. 24, 631–639 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colak, A.: The long-term durability performance of gypsum–Portland cement–natural pozzolan blends. Cem. Concr. Res. 32, 109–115 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dolezelova, M., Vimmrova, A.: Moisture influence on compressive strength of ternary gypsum-based binders. In: Simos, T., Tsitouras, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics 2016. American Institute of Physics, Melville (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arikan, M., Sobolev, K.: The optimization of a gypsum-based composite material. Cem. Concr. Res. 32, 1725–1728 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Böse, H., Hurbanic. M., Raether, F.: Optimization of gypsum plaster composition supported by experimental design. ConChem J. 64–71 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vimmrova, A., Koci, V., Krejsova, J., Cerny, R.: A method for optimizing lightweight-gypsum design based on sequential measurements of physical parameters. Meas. Sci. Rev. 16, 160–166 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vimmrova, A., Keppert, M., Michalko, O., Cerny, R.: Calcined gypsum-lime-metakaolin binders: design of optimal composition. Cem. Concr. Compos. 52, 91–96 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Svoboda, L.: SOVA 1.0 [software] (2012).
  18. 18.
    Nelder, J.: English proofreading by a native speaker was performed prior to submission of the revised article A and Mead, R.: A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7, 308–313 (1965)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ČSN EN 196-1 Methods of testing cement—Part 1: Determination of strength Czech Standardization Institute. Prague (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ČSN EN 13279-2 Gypsum binders and gypsum plasters: Test methods. Czech Standardization Institute. Prague (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations