Search Advanced

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

2024, Volume 21, Issue 1: 1413-1444. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024061
Previous Article Next Article
Research article

Decision tree models for the estimation of geo-polymer concrete compressive strength

  • 1.
    College of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Engineering, Yongzhou 425199, China
  • 2.
    Shandong Energy Group Xinwen Mining Co., Ltd., Taian 271233, China
  • 3.
    Faculty of the Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Jalal AleAhmad, Nasr, Tehran, Iran
  • 4.
    School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
  • 5.
    Guangdong Hualu Transport Technology Co., Ltd, Guangzhou, China

  • Academic Editor: Frank Werner
  • Received: 22 September 2023 Revised: 04 December 2023 Accepted: 15 December 2023 Published: 27 December 2023

  • The green concretes industry benefits from utilizing gel to replace parts of the cement in concretes. However, measuring the compressive strength of geo-polymer concretes (CSGPoC) needs a significant amount of work and expenditure. Therefore, the best idea is predicting CSGPoC with a high level of accuracy. To do this, the base learner and super learner machine learning models were proposed in this study to anticipate CSGPoC. The decision tree (DT) is applied as base learner, and the random forest and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) techniques are used as super learner system. In this regard, a database was provided involving 259 CSGPoC data samples, of which four-fifths of is considered for the training model and one-fifth is selected for the testing models. The values of fly ash, ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), Na2SiO3, NaOH, fine aggregate, gravel 4/10 mm, gravel 10/20 mm, water/solids ratio, and NaOH molarity were considered as input of the models to estimate CSGPoC. To evaluate the reliability and performance of the decision tree (DT), XGBoost, and random forest (RF) models, 12 performance evaluation metrics were determined. Based on the obtained results, the highest degree of accuracy is achieved by the XGBoost model with mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.073, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 5.547, Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) of 0.981, correlation coefficient (R) of 0.991, R2 of 0.982, root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.458, Willmott's index (WI) of 0.795, weighted mean absolute percentage error (WMAPE) of 0.046, Bias of 2.073, square index (SI) of 0.054, p of 0.027, mean relative error (MRE) of -0.014, and a20 of 0.983 for the training model and MAE of 2.06, MAPE of 6.553, NS of 0.985, R of 0.993, R2 of 0.986, RMSE of 2.307, WI of 0.818, WMAPE of 0.05, Bias of 2.06, SI of 0.056, p of 0.028, MRE of -0.015, and a20 of 0.949 for the testing model. By importing the testing set into trained models, values of 0.8969, 0.9857, and 0.9424 for R2 were obtained for DT, XGBoost, and RF, respectively, which show the superiority of the XGBoost model in CSGPoC estimation. In conclusion, the XGBoost model is capable of more accurately predicting CSGPoC than DT and RF models.

    Citation: Ji Zhou, Zhanlin Su, Shahab Hosseini, Qiong Tian, Yijun Lu, Hao Luo, Xingquan Xu, Chupeng Chen, Jiandong Huang. Decision tree models for the estimation of geo-polymer concrete compressive strength[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 1413-1444. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024061

    Related Papers:

    [1] Sakthieswaran Natarajan, Shiny Brintha Gnanadurai . An approach to study the inter-relationship between mechanical and durability properties of ternary blended cement concrete using linear regression analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3734-3752. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019185
    [2] Yu Jin, Zhe Ren, Wenjie Wang, Yulei Zhang, Liang Zhou, Xufeng Yao, Tao Wu . Classification of Alzheimer's disease using robust TabNet neural networks on genetic data. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8358-8374. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023366
    [3] Jie Bai, Heru Xue, Xinhua Jiang, Yanqing Zhou . Recognition of bovine milk somatic cells based on multi-feature extraction and a GBDT-AdaBoost fusion model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 5850-5866. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022274
    [4] Yunyun Liang, Shengli Zhang, Huijuan Qiao, Yinan Cheng . iEnhancer-MFGBDT: Identifying enhancers and their strength by fusing multiple features and gradient boosting decision tree. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8797-8814. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021434
    [5] Dan Zhu, Liru Yang, Xin Liang . Gender classification in classical fiction: A computational analysis of 1113 fictions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 8892-8907. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022412
    [6] Jian-xue Tian, Jue Zhang . Breast cancer diagnosis using feature extraction and boosted C5.0 decision tree algorithm with penalty factor. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 2193-2205. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022102
    [7] Jian Cao, Tao Liu, Ziyang Han, Bin Tu . Sulfate ions diffusion in concrete under coupled effect of compression load and dry-wet circulation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 9965-9991. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023437
    [8] Hanyu Zhao, Chao Che, Bo Jin, Xiaopeng Wei . A viral protein identifying framework based on temporal convolutional network. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1709-1717. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019081
    [9] Zhihao Zhang, Ting Zeng, Yijia Wang, Yinxia Su, Xianghua Tian, Guoxiang Ma, Zemin Luan, Fengjun Li . Prediction Model of hospitalization time of COVID-19 patients based on Gradient Boosted Regression Trees. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 10444-10458. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023459
    [10] Lili Jiang, Sirong Chen, Yuanhui Wu, Da Zhou, Lihua Duan . Prediction of coronary heart disease in gout patients using machine learning models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 4574-4591. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023212

  • The green concretes industry benefits from utilizing gel to replace parts of the cement in concretes. However, measuring the compressive strength of geo-polymer concretes (CSGPoC) needs a significant amount of work and expenditure. Therefore, the best idea is predicting CSGPoC with a high level of accuracy. To do this, the base learner and super learner machine learning models were proposed in this study to anticipate CSGPoC. The decision tree (DT) is applied as base learner, and the random forest and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) techniques are used as super learner system. In this regard, a database was provided involving 259 CSGPoC data samples, of which four-fifths of is considered for the training model and one-fifth is selected for the testing models. The values of fly ash, ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), Na2SiO3, NaOH, fine aggregate, gravel 4/10 mm, gravel 10/20 mm, water/solids ratio, and NaOH molarity were considered as input of the models to estimate CSGPoC. To evaluate the reliability and performance of the decision tree (DT), XGBoost, and random forest (RF) models, 12 performance evaluation metrics were determined. Based on the obtained results, the highest degree of accuracy is achieved by the XGBoost model with mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.073, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 5.547, Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) of 0.981, correlation coefficient (R) of 0.991, R2 of 0.982, root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.458, Willmott's index (WI) of 0.795, weighted mean absolute percentage error (WMAPE) of 0.046, Bias of 2.073, square index (SI) of 0.054, p of 0.027, mean relative error (MRE) of -0.014, and a20 of 0.983 for the training model and MAE of 2.06, MAPE of 6.553, NS of 0.985, R of 0.993, R2 of 0.986, RMSE of 2.307, WI of 0.818, WMAPE of 0.05, Bias of 2.06, SI of 0.056, p of 0.028, MRE of -0.015, and a20 of 0.949 for the testing model. By importing the testing set into trained models, values of 0.8969, 0.9857, and 0.9424 for R2 were obtained for DT, XGBoost, and RF, respectively, which show the superiority of the XGBoost model in CSGPoC estimation. In conclusion, the XGBoost model is capable of more accurately predicting CSGPoC than DT and RF models.


    1.   Introduction

    Cement concretes are the construction component that is employed on a global scale with the highest rate [1,2]. Ordinary Portland cement is one of the most common forms of binding agent used in cement concretes. Additional kinds of aggregate, water, and binding agents are other components of cement concretes. After aluminum and steel, oxidized polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon is regarded as the third most incredibly energy-demanding chemical in the world. Ordinary Portland cement is responsible for seven percent of the overall energy that is needed by industries [3]. Unfortunately, the manufacturing of ordinary Portland cement results in the emission of enormous quantities of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which has a significant role in the progression of global warming [4,5,6]. It is anticipated that the production of ordinary Portland cement would result in the release of 1,400,000,000 tons of greenhouse gases on a yearly basis [7,8]. Because of this, scientists have focused their attention on finding ways to lessen the amount of ordinary Portland cement that is used thanks to the development of alternative binders. There is some evidence that suggests that alkali-activated components, including geo-polymers, are preferred to cement concrete [9,10,11,12]. The reaction of precursor and activator results in the formation of alkali-activated compounds. In accordance with the amount of calcium present in the products of the chemical process, these were divided into two categories: 1) those that are high in calcium and have a Ca/(Si + Al) proportion that is higher than one (geo-polymers) and 2) those that are weak in calcium [13].

    A geo-polymer is an innovative kind of binder produced for the production of concretes instead of ordinary Portland cement [13,14,15,16,17]. This was performed in order to improve the efficiency of production. The objective is to develop construction supplies that are sustainable-based, eco-friendly, and do not contain ordinary Portland cement. There is a significant increase in the number of distinct kinds of waste products that are being produced and deposited in landfills as a direct result of the ongoing expansion of industry and population. Rice husk ash, waste glass powder, ground granulated glass furnace slag, silica fume, fly ash, etc., are included in this category of wastes. It is detrimental to the environment to dispose of the mentioned wastes in landfills since they contribute to contamination in the environment [18,19]. Because geo-polymer concrete (GPoC) requires basic components with higher aluminum silicate concentrations present in waste materials, recycling these types of materials to produce GPoC would reduce the volume of pollutants that are released into the atmosphere [20,21]. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the GPoC manufacturing procedure, in which a variety of different kinds of components and curing regimens are shown to be utilized during the making of GPoC. As can be seen in Figure 2, the utilization of such kinds of waste materials will be beneficial to both the natural environment and the economic system. This is because these materials are abundant and the need for reasonably priced housing is expected to increase in tandem with the growth of populations [8,22,23,24]. In general, the use of GPoC for studies is becoming more common, and it has the potential to overtake other environmentally friendly construction materials [25,26]. Despite this, GPoC has an opportunity to produce a substantial contribution to the continued existence of cement concrete technologies as well as the construction sector in the years to come.

    Figure 1.  Schematic illustration of the geo-polymer construction strategy [27].
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure 2.  Advantages of geo-polymer concrete containing waste materials [28].
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have provided an explanation for the widespread use of artificial intelligence techniques for anticipating the properties of a variety of materials in civil engineering [29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Also, varying AI techniques have been employed to predict the mechanical properties of engineering materials [36,37,38,39,40,41]. In a study that was conducted by Huang et al. [42], a comparison was conducted between three different artificial intelligence techniques known as decision trees (DT), AdaBoost, and bagging regressor in order to predict the compressive strength of GPoC (CSGPoC) that included fly ash materials. In comparison to the other systems examined, it proved that the bagging regressor approach showed the highest level of accuracy. In a separate study conducted by Ahmad et al. [43], artificial neural networks and gene expression programming (GEP) models were used to generate an estimate of the compressive strength of concretes that included recycled aggregates. In the study, the GEP model provided a more accurate forecast than the artificial neural network. A study conducted by Song et al. [44] used an artificial neural network approach to explore the compressive strength of concretes including waste materials, and they were able to correctly anticipate the needed conclusion. According to the findings of the study, it is possible to effectively use machine learning methods to anticipate any kind of mechanical feature that is associated with concretes. The tensile and compressive strengths of concretes with high performance were predicted using a number of artificial intelligence methods, as detailed by Nguyen et al. [45]. They concluded that the approaches of combined artificial intelligence were more accurate than the methods of artificial intelligence used in standalone form. This is due to the fact that the various machine learning techniques, in order to produce a more accurate model, frequently utilize the abilities of weak learners including decision trees and multi-layer perception neural networks. Therefore, several researchers have documented different artificial intelligence systems that have better degrees of precision in their evaluation of the attributes of materials. In light of this, it is absolutely necessary to carry out more in-depth research in order to shed light on this particular issue. Some literature models for predicting different characteristics of concretes are reported in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Using artificial intelligence techniques to predict various characteristics of concretes.
    Author Year Technique Number of data
    Huang et al. [46] 2021 SVM 114
    Sarir et al. [47] 2019 GEP 303
    Balf et al. [48] 2021 DEA 114
    Ahmad et al. [49] 2021 GEP, ANN, DT 642
    Azimi-Pour et al. [50] 2020 SVM -
    Saha et al. [51] 2020 SVM 115
    Hahmansouri et al. [52] 2020 GEP 351
    Hahmansouri et al. [53] 2019 GEP 54
    Aslam et al. [54] 2020 GEP 357
    Farooq et al. [55] 2020 RF and GEP 357
    Asteris and Kolovos [56] 2019 ANN 205
    Selvaraj and Sivaraman [57] 2019 IREMSVM-FR with RSM 114
    Zhang et al. [58] 2019 RF 131
    Kaveh et al. [59] 2018 M5MARS 114
    Sathyan et al. [60] 2018 RKSA 40
    Vakhshouri and Nejadi [61] 2018 ANFIS 55
    Belalia Douma et al. [62] 2017 ANN 114
    Abu Yaman et al. [63] 2017 ANN 69
    Ahmad et al. [64] 2021 GEP, DT and Bagging 270
    Farooq et al. [65] 2021 ANN, bagging and boosting 1030
    Bušić et al. [66] 2020 MV 21
    Javad et al. [67] 2020 GEP 277
    Nematzadeh et al. [68] 2020 RSM, GEP 108
    Güçlüer et al. [69] 2021 ANN, SVM, DT 100
    Ahmad et al. [70] 2021 ANN, DT, GB 207
    Asteris et al. [71] 2021 ANN, GPR, MARS 1030
    Emad et al. [72] 2022 ANN, M5P, 306
    Shen et al. [73] 2022 XGBoost, AdaBoost, and Bagging 372
    Kuma et al. [74] 2022 GPR, SVMR 194
    Jaf et al. [75] 2023 NLR, MLR, ANN 236
    Mahmood et al. [76] 2023 NLR, M5P, ANN 280
    Ali et al. [77] 2023 LR, MLR, NLR, PQ, IA, FQ 420
    SVM: Support vector machine; GEP: Gene expression programming; ANN: Artificial neural network; DT: Decision tree; RF: Random Fores; DEA: Data envelopment analysis; RSM: Response surface methodology; ANFIS: Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system; MV: Micali-Vazirani algorithm; RKSA: Retina key scheduling algorithm; GB: gradient boosting; GPR: Gaussian Process Regression; MARS: Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines; SVMR: Support Vector Machine Regression; NLR: Nonlinear regression; MLR: Multi-linear regression; LR: linear regression; PQ: pure quadratic; IA: interaction; FQ: full quadratic.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    This research differs from experimentation-based research in that it examines the CSGPoC using both base models of artificial intelligence methods as well as their ensemble form for predicting the CSGPoC. Experiment-based studies require considerable quantities of personal effort in addition to costly and lengthy experiments. By tackling the aforementioned challenges, using advanced technology such as artificial intelligence will help the building industry [13,78,79]. It is challenging to determine how several factors, such as precursor materials, activator solution, aggregates amount, and others, affect the strength of GPoC utilizing experimental procedures. Machine learning approaches may quickly and easily determine the combined impact of its constituent parts. Given that numerous studies have been accomplished to ascertain the determination of CSGPoC, machine learning models need a dataset, which could have been acquired from previous studies. Following data gathering, machine learning models can be trained to predict material attributes. Recent research has used machine learning techniques with a constrained set of effective parameters and databases to determine the intensity of GPoC. For instance, Dao et al.'s [80] use of machine learning approaches to forecast the CSGPoC employing three inputs and 210 data rows. Similar to this research, [81] employed 210 data rows and 4 inputs. In order to examine the effectiveness of various machine learning approaches used to anticipate the CSGPoC, the current study used nine effective parameters on CSGPoC and 295 data points based on literature review. The results of this study are also contrasted with those of related earlier investigations. The superior accuracy of machine learning approaches is anticipated to come from employing more input parameters and data points. The main goal of the present work is to identify the best machine learning method for calculating the CSGPoC using anticipated results and the impact of different parameters on GPoC strength. The computational flowchart of the study is depicted in Figure 3.

    Figure 3.  The flowchart of the study.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    2.   Data analysis

    The composition of the various alkali excitation components and solid waste from the industry that are used to make gels are the basic components, and the amount of these initial components used in the production of gels have an effect on the efficiency of the gels [24,79,82,83]. It is necessary to have adequate Na+ and OH in order to finish every step of the polymerization of gels, and the amount of both of these ions has a direct bearing on the amount of force that can be exerted by the gels [84]. In light of the two aforementioned explanations, as well as the impact that the properties and ratios of the initial materials have on the compressive strength of concretes, the authors of the present study came to the conclusion that GGBS, sodium silicate, fly-ash, gravel stones (4–10 mm to 10–20 mm), water/solids proportion, sodium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide molarity, and fine aggregates are the effective parameters to determine and predict the CSGPoC to complete a dataset comprising 295 data points. The required CSGPoC data of developing models is gathered from a study conducted by Yong et al. [28]. This data includes nine parameters as inputs and CSGPoC as the output of the models. Statistical analysis of the inputs and output is reported in Table 2. Furthermore, a better view for variations of inputs as well as CSGPoC in 295 various points are demonstrated in Figure 4.

    Table 2.  Statistical analysis of effective parameters datasets.
    Parameter Symbol Unit Median Min Mean Max StD
    Inputs Fly ash FA kg/m3 170 0 178.265 523 173.979
    GGBS GGBS kg/m3 225 0 209.831 450 163.271
    Na2SiO3 Na2SiO3 kg/m3 100 18 104.059 342 44.9000
    NaOH NaOH kg/m3 64 6.300 60.042 147 30.391
    Fine aggregate FAg kg/m3 721 459 731.209 1360 138.078
    Gravel 4–10 mm Gravel 4–10 kg/m3 309 0 335.828 1293.400 373.884
    Gravel 10–20 mm Gravel 10–20 kg/m3 815 0 741.556 1298 361.336
    Water/solids ratio WS N/A 0.330 0.120 0.330 0.630 0.095
    NaOH molarity NaOH molarity N/A 10 1 8.193 20 4.596
    Output Compressive strength of geo-polymer concrete CSGPoC MPa 43 10 44.474 86.080 18.010
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 4.  The variation of input variables and CSGPoC for 295 data points.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    Before model developing, the correlation coefficient between parameters should be evaluated [13,85,86,87]. If the correlation between two parameters is high, the multicollinearity problem appears in the model. Therefore, the Spearman correlation coefficient between CSGPoC and effective parameters is calculated as shown in Figure 5. This figure is a heatmap of Spearman correlation coefficient that can be determined by following equation [88,89,90,91]:

    r=n∑i=1(xi−xm)(yi−ym)√n∑i=1(xi−xm)2×n∑i=1(yi−ym)2 (1)

    where n, xm, and ym stand for the number of datasets, average value across all x data, and the average value across all y data, respectively. When the r value is r > 0, r = 0, r ≃ 1, r < 0, or r ≃ -1, then there is positive linear correlation, no correlation, stronger positive linear correlation, negative linear correlation, or stronger negative linear correlation, respectively [8,87,92]. From Figure 5, there exist medium negative and positive linear correlations between CSGPoC and FA and GGBS at -0.43 and 0.46, respectively. Moreover, the correlation between CSGPoC and NaoH, Gravel 4–10 mm, and NaOH molarity is a weak negative linear correlation with r equal to -0.22, -0.27, and -0.12, respectively, and the correlation between CSGPoC and other parameters is a weak positive linear correlation. Based on these results, the investigation of developed models impact will not be influenced by the occurrence of multicollinearity between effective parameters on CSGPoC. In the following, the violin plot of parameters is showed in Figure 6. In this figure, the median, Q1, Q2, Q3, minimum, and maximum values of parameters are presented.

    Figure 5.  Heatmap plot of effective parameters.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure 6.  Violin plot of effective parameters.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    3.   Materials and methods

    3.1.   Decision tree

    The DT is an artificial intelligence method widely employed for classifying issues, including those involving regression. Classes are included inside the trees. On the other hand, if there is not already a class for the data, researchers can employ the regression approach to develop predictions about the result based on the effective parameters [13,87,93]. A DT is a hierarchical classification algorithm, and the internal node of a DT is equivalent to databases properties. The branches of the tree reflect the results of the regulations, and the leaf nodes stand for different outcomes. A DT is constructed from two different nodes: the decision nodes and the leaf nodes. Leaf nodes do not possess branches and are regarded as the decision's result. In contrast, a decision node is capable of making a choice since they contain multiple decision-making branches. As its name implies, a DT is a kind of data architecture of trees, with a root node and it increases in size based on the number of branches [94]. The DT splits the data points into different sections. The target and the projected numbers are compared at every splitting point, and the difference is determined by the procedure being carried out. The error values are calculated at each division point, and the parameter with the least fit function is selected as a division point. The operation is then iterated as necessary. Figure 7 presents the DT flowchart.

    Figure 7.  An example of DT architecture.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    3.2.   Random forest

    Breiman [95] first put out the idea of using the RF technique, which is a common approach to soft computing. The RF method relies on decision-trees computations, and it has the ability to assemble numerous decision trees into a complicated structure in order to arrive at a conclusion on the classifications or regressions that have been presented to them. Throughout this phase of computation, the DTs that create the RF architecture receive training by randomly choosing parameters and data points from the primary CSGPoC database. Breiman [95] and Liaw and Wiener [96] both provide thorough overviews of the RF technique. The conceptual view of the RF model is demonstrated in Figure 8.

    Figure 8.  A schematic representation of RF model.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    3.3.   eXtreme-Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)

    XGBoost is a recommendation system developed by Chen et al. [97]. The lifting technique consists of training many of the base models (learners) using specific approaches, such as the simple decision trees that have low depth, and then combining the forecasting outcomes of these weak base learners using specific techniques in order to significantly enhance the estimation impact [8,98]. As its weak learners, XGBoost employs regressive trees with a short depth. Let the learners that were acquired in the first phase be y; 0′. This will apply to the initial shallow regression tree models that were created during the training phase. It is assumed that the resulting model appears as F0(t) and that t denotes the instance vector in the space of features. XGBoost continues by computing and obtaining the first and second derivatives, which are hi and gi, of the loss function of the errors among the classifiers. This is done after the function has been evaluated. The value that was anticipated in the process before this one, which was m − 1, the objective function of Fm(t), may be calculated using the second-order expansions of the Taylor function as follows:

    Obj(m)=∑Ni=1[giFm(ti)+12hiF2m(ti)]+Ω(Fm) (2)

    The regularizing component is denoted by the symbol Ω(Fm), and its purpose is to prevent the technique from unnecessarily enhancing the degree of complexity of the models in an effort to enhance its precision, which would result in the overfitting problem. (Fm) is equivalent to the following expressions:

    Ω(Fm)=γT+12λ‖w‖2 (3)

    In which γ and λ stand for penalty coefficients, w represents the weighting of the regression leaves node, T indicates the number of regression leaves node, and ‖w‖2 shows the effect that the weight of the regression leaves node has on the level of complexity of the models. Equation (3) reveals that the fitted objective in each repetition of the XGBoost objective function is the difference between the value that was anticipated and the actual value of the data. This can be observed by comparing the projected values to the actual values. The goal of the training procedure is to reduce obj(m) to the smallest possible value. The MSE value may be used by the regression trees node dividing to choose which dividing features to use. Subsequently, it is possible to generate an additional shallower trees model called Fm(t), and the learner may be updated as follows:

    y'm(t)=y'm−1(t)+Fm(t) (4)

    The XGBoost regression flowchart is illustrated in Figure 9.

    Figure 9.  Voting process in the XGBoost structure.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    4.   Date preparation

    Before developing machine learning models and predicting CSGPoC, two main steps are implemented. The closer the distance between the inputs and CSGPoC parameters is, the machine learning techniques can better learn the relationships among parameters. Also, the training of machine learning techniques is only performed based on the parameters' values, not their unit. Therefore, the input values should be normalized in the range [0, 1] in the first step of pre-analysis using Eq (5) to achieve a rational output [99,100,101].

    xnorm=(xi−xmaximun)(xmaximun−xminimun) (5)

    In which xnorm, xi, xmaximum, and xminimun signify the standardized value, actual value, maximum value, and minimum value, respectively [102].

    In the second step of pre-analysis, the data points were randomly categorized into two main phases: training samples (80% of whole CSGPoC, 236 data out of 295 CSGPoC data) and testing samples (20% of whole CSGPoC, 59 data out of 295 CSGPoC data). Then the train samples were applied for models learning and the testing samples were applied for the evaluation of models performance.

    Overfitting is a common challenge in machine learning models, where a model performs exceptionally well on the training data but struggles with unseen data. To address this concern, the study has meticulously incorporated a safeguard in its model development process. They employed rigorous cross-validation techniques, ensuring that the model's performance is evaluated on diverse subsets of the dataset. Additionally, the authors applied regularization methods, such as dropout or weight decay, to prevent the model from becoming overly complex and fitting noise in the data. Furthermore, the use of a diverse and representative dataset, along with extensive hyperparameter tuning, contributes to the generalization capability of the model [103].

    5.   Results and discussion

    The construction of the base learner (DT) and super learner (RF and XGBoost) predictive models on 295 CSGPoC data is highlighted and discussed in this section. The performance and efficiency of the developed DT, XGBoost, and RF models were evaluated utilizing 12 statistical metrics involving mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), Nash–Sutcliffe (NS), correlation coefficient (R), root mean square error (RMSE), R2, Willmott's index (WI), weighted mean absolute percentage error (WMAPE), bias index, square index (SI), p, mean relative error (MRE), and a20 index [98,104,105,106,107,108,109]. The determination of these metrics can be performed by the following equations. It should be noted that the performance of the developed predictive models is analyzed and described using scatter plots, ribbon charts, violin plots, Taylor diagrams, and error plots.

    RMSE=√1n∑ni=1(O−P)2 (6)
    MAE=1n∑ni=1|(P−O)| (7)
    R2=∑ri=1(O−¯O)2−∑ri=1(O−P)2∑ri=1(O−¯O)2 (8)
    R=∑(Oi−−P)(Pi−−P)√∑(Oi−−P)2∑(Oi−−P)2 (9)
    MAPE=1n∑ni=1|O−PO|∗100 (10)
    WMAPE=∑ni=1|O−PO|∗α∑ni=1O (11)
    NS=1−∑ni=1(O−P)2∑ni=1(O−¯P)2 (12)
    Bias=1n∑ni=1(P−O)2 (13)
    SI=RMSE1n∑ni=1O (14)
    ρ=SI1+R (15)
    MRE=1n∑ni=1(|O−P|O) (16)
    a20−index=m20M (17)

    where Oi and Pi are the measured and anticipated ith CSGPoC values respectively, n stands the number data points, ¯O is the mean of the measured CSGPoC, and ¯P is the mean of the predicted CSGPoC. Moreover, m20 and M indicate the total number of data points and the number of points with a ratio "measured value" over "predicted value" between 0.80 and 1.20 respectively [110,111,112].

    Some evaluation metrics including error indices of MRE, RSME, MAPE, MAE, SI, p, WI, bias, and WMAPE are applied to error analysis and evaluation of the relationships between the measured CSGPoC and predicted one with base learner and super learner models. The minimum value for error indices reveals the highest prediction capability. The R2, NS, and R determine model precision within a range of 0–1, and an amount higher than 0.95 for these metrics indicates that the proposed models present a highly reliable and accurate prediction. The obtained performance evaluation metrics of all the developed RF, XGBoost, and RF models are summarized in Figure 10. The predictive model can be specified as the most accurate system when the errors of MRE, RSME, MAPE, MAE, SI, p, WI, bias, and WMAPE are the lowest, and the values of accuracy of R2, NS, and R are higher. From Figure 10, the XGBoost model presents the highest performance prediction level based on the evaluation metrics. The highest degree of accuracy yielded by the XGBoost model achieved MAE of 2.073, MAPE of 5.547, NS of 0.981, R of 0.991, R2 of 0.982, RMSE of 2.458, WI of 0.795, WMAPE of 0.046, bias of 2.073, SI of 0.054, p of 0.027, MRE of -0.014, and a20 of 0.983 for the training model and MAE of 2.06, MAPE of 6.553, NS of 0.985, R of 0.993, R2 of 0.986, RMSE of 2.307, WI of 0.818, WMAPE of 0.05, bias of 2.06, SI of 0.056, p of 0.028, MRE of -0.015, and a20 of 0.949 for the testing model. Furthermore, the highest R2 (0.9819 for training part and 0.9857 for testing part) is achieved by the XGBoost model, while the lowest R2 (0.8859 for training part and 0.8969 for testing part) is obtained by the DT model. Therefore, the DT model has the worst performance and accuracy concerning the evaluation indices with MAE of 4.666, MAPE of 12.117, NS of 0.871, R of 0.941, R2 of 0.886, RMSE of 6.333, WI of -0.335, WMAPE of 0.103, bias of 4.666, SI of 0.143, p of 0.074, MRE of 0.029, and a20 of 0.826 for the training set and MAE of 5.103, MAPE of 15.736, NS of 0.896, R of 0.947, R2 of 0.897, RMSE of 6.111, WI of -0.265, WMAPE of 0.125, bias of 5.103, SI of 0.149, p of 0.076, MRE of -0.036, and a20 of 0.729 for the testing set.

    Figure 10.  Ribbon chart for training (above) and testing (below) models.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    The obtained R2 and correlation between measured and predicted CSGPoC by XGBoost, RF, and DT is illustrated in Figures 11–13, respectively. As can be seen, the highest R2 value is relevant to the XGBoost model in both the training and testing sets.

    Figure 11.  The obtained R2 and correlation between measured and predicted CSGPoC by the XGBoost model.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure 12.  The obtained R2 and correlation between measured and predicted CSGPoC by the RF model.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure 13.  The obtained R2 and correlation between measured and predicted CSGPoC by the DT model.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    In the following, the performance of the models is evaluated by adding testing sets to trained models. The capability of the prediction performance is specified by testing data. An acceptable value for statistical metrics in the training phase does not mean that the models are predicting correctly, and the efficiency of the models should be evaluated using test data. If the model error is reduced by importing the test data into modeling process, it can be concluded that the model training is not performed well and the model is not able to predict the CSGPoC values in the real world. The testing results are revealed in Figure 14. It can be seen that the prediction of CSGPoC is conducted correctly, as the results of the testing phase are approximately close to the results of the training phase for all DT, RF, and XGBoost models. Specially, the results of the XGBoost model are acceptable and its accuracy is confirmed for predicting CSGPoC in other projects.

    Figure 14.  Testing results of predicted CSGPoC by (a) DT, (b) XGBoost, and (c) RF models.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    The distribution of error for all models is revealed from the violin plot, which is demonstrated in Figure 15. The violin diagram shows the range of errors relevant to the DT, XGBoost, and RF models. From Figure 15, it can be found that the range of errors in the XGBoost model is lower for both the training and testing phases compared to the RF and DT models. Of the models, the DT model has the lowest accuracy due to its higher error ranges on the violin plot. The schematic demonstration of the standard deviation, coefficient determination, and RMSE values can be shown using Taylor's diagram, which is displayed for the training and testing parts of the models in Figure 16. This figure assigns the best-fitted model. In this figure, the red dashed line represents the standard deviation of the data. As depicted in Figure 16, both the standard deviation and R2 are close to 1 for reference point. The XGBoost, DT, and RF models are illustrated in this figure using green, orange and purple colored squares. The XGBoost symbol is very close to the reference symbol (red square), which shows that the XGBoost model reflects the reality-based results and presents better results in terms of performance and precision values. It can be concluded that although the accuracy of the DT and RF models is acceptable, XGBoost is the superior model for predicting CSGPoC.

    Figure 15.  Testing results of predicted CSGPoC by DT, XGBoost, and RF models.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint
    Figure 16.  Testing results of predicted CSGPoC by DT, XGBoost, and RF models.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    In the last step of modeling processes, a sensitivity analysis on the effective parameters is performed. Sensitivity analysis techniques, such as the cosine amplitude method (CAM), evaluate the impact of input parameters or assumptions on the output of a model or system. This method involves systematically varying individual input parameters while keeping other factors constant and measuring the resulting changes in the model's output. By applying this method, researchers can quantify the model's sensitivity to specific input variations and identify the parameters that had the most critical impacts on the model's behaviors. Through this analysis, researchers can identify critical parameters that contribute the most to output variability, allowing for the prioritization of resources and efforts toward addressing and optimizing these influential factors. Also, this method evaluates how sensitive the model is to small or large fluctuations in input parameters [113], as follows:

    sij=m∑k=1xik⋅xjk√(m∑k=1x2ik)⋅(m∑k=1x2jk) (18)

    where xik and xjk represent the inputs and output variables, and m stands the number of data points.

    In accordance with the devised methodology of CAM, emphasis was placed on assessing the sensitivity of output variables to input variables. As illustrated in Figure 17, the influence of input parameters (X) on objective functions (outputs) was investigated. A higher value of rij, closer to 1, signifies a more pronounced impact of the input parameters on the objectives (outputs). The outcomes depicted in Figure 17 reveal that a majority of the input parameters exhibit significant effects on CSGPoC. Specifically, the parameters Fag and WS demonstrated the most substantial impacts on CSGPoC, with strengths of 0.928 and 0.904, respectively. In the second rank, Na2SiO3, gravel 10/20, and GGBS parameters exhibited comparable strengths of 0.872, 0.863, and 0.838, indicating approximately similar levels of influence. Additionally, the parameters NaOH and NaOH molarity exerted notable effects on CSGPoC, with strengths of 0.791 and 0.787, respectively. Also, the impact of FA on CSGPoC was moderate, as evidenced by a strength value of 0.552.

    Figure 17.  The strength of the impact of effective parameters on CSGPoC.
    DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

    6.   Limitations and future works

    Despite the promising results obtained from the XGBoost model in predicting CSGPoC, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations within this study. First, the generalization of the developed models may be constrained by the specific composition and characteristics of the dataset used for training and testing. The reliance on a singular dataset, consisting of 259 CSGPoC samples, may not fully encapsulate the diverse range of conditions and materials encountered in real-world scenarios. Additionally, the study focuses on a specific set of input parameters, and the exclusion of other potentially influential factors could limit the model's applicability to a broader spectrum of geo-polymer concrete formulations. Furthermore, the current research primarily addresses the prediction aspect, and considering various external factors, the practical implementation of the proposed models in an industrial setting remains a subject for future exploration.

    To advance the field of geo-polymer concrete compressive strength estimation, future research endeavors should aim to address the identified limitations and explore new avenues. First, expanding the dataset to include a more extensive variety of geo-polymer concrete formulations and considering additional influential factors could enhance the robustness and generalization of the developed models. The incorporation of real-world complexities, such as environmental conditions and variations in raw materials, would contribute to the models' reliability in practical applications. Moreover, a comparative analysis with other advanced machine learning algorithms and the integration of hybrid models could provide further insights into optimizing the accuracy and efficiency of CSGPoC prediction. The scalability and adaptability of the models for different scales of construction projects and manufacturing processes should also be investigated. Hence, validation through large-scale field trials would validate the models' effectiveness and facilitate their seamless integration into the decision-making processes of the green concretes industry.

    7.   Conclusions

    The main purpose of the current research is to establish a robust predictive system for predicting CSGPoC. The creation of environmentally friendly building supplies may be helped along by the increased use of geo-polymer concrete in the construction sector, which is also helping to popularize this material. This research has a beneficial effect on advancing the use of geopolymer concrete by boosting its use. An efficient super learner technique for predicting the CSGPoC was proposed with the use of the XGBoost and RF models, which allowed for the development of a high-performance model. A database comprised of 259 CSGPoC data points was gathered from literature for developing DT, RF, and XGBoost models as well as accurately predicting CSGPoC. For developing models, nine effective parameters, including FA, GGBS, Na2SiO3, NaOH, FAg, Gravel 4/10, Gravel 10/20, WS, and NaOH molarity, were considered. The obtained results clarified that the highest R2 was determined by the XGBoost model as 0.9819 and 0.9857 for the training and testing parts, respectively. Hence, the XGBoost outperformed DT with R2 of 0.8859 and 0.8969 and RF with R2 of 0.9492 and 0.9424 for training and testing phases, respectively. It can be concluded that the XGBoost super learner model is significantly more efficient in establishing estimation models of CSGPoC than the DT and RF models.

    Use of AI tools declaration

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    Acknowledgments

    This research was supported by the Guangdong provincial science and technology plan project (Grant No. 2021B1111610002), Natural Science Foundation of Hunan (Grant No. 2023JJ50418) and Hunan Provincial transportation technology project (Grant No. 202109). The writers are grateful for this support.

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] S. H. Chu, H. Ye, L. Huang, L. G. Li, Carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer (FRG) mix design based on liquid film thickness, Constr. Build. Mater., 269 (2021), 121278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121278 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121278
    [2] J. Huang, M. Zhou, J. Zhang, J. Ren, N. I. Vatin, M. M. S. Sabri, The use of GA and PSO in evaluating the shear strength of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams, KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 26 (2022), 3918–3931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-022-0961-0 doi: 10.1007/s12205-022-0961-0
    [3] K. V. Teja, P. P. Sai, T. Meena, Investigation on the behaviour of ternary blended concrete with scba and sf, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., 263 (2017), 032012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/263/3/032012 doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/263/3/032012
    [4] Z. Bayasi, J. Zhou, Properties of silica fume concrete and mortar, Int. Concr. Abstr. Portal, 90 (1993), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.14359/3892 doi: 10.14359/3892
    [5] X. Li, D. Qin, Y. Hu, W. Ahmad, A. Ahmad, F. Aslam, et al., A systematic review of waste materials in cement-based composites for construction applications, J. Build. Eng., 45 (2022), 103447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103447 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103447
    [6] J. Huang, M. Zhou, J. Zhang, J. Ren, N. I. Vatin, M. M. S. Sabri, Development of a new stacking model to evaluate the strength parameters of concrete samples in laboratory, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng., 46 (2022), 4355–4370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-022-00912-y doi: 10.1007/s40996-022-00912-y
    [7] A. Cleetus, R. Shibu, P. M. Sreehari, V. K. Paul, B. Jacob, Analysis and study of the effect of GGBFS on concrete structures, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 5 (2018), 3033–3037.
    [8] Y. Qiu, J. Zhou, Short-term rockburst damage assessment in burst-prone mines: an explainable XGBOOST hybrid model with SCSO algorithm, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 56 (2023), 8745–8770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03522-w doi: 10.1007/s00603-023-03522-w
    [9] V. K. Nagaraj, D. L. V. Babu, Assessing the performance of molarity and alkaline activator ratio on engineering properties of self-compacting alkaline activated concrete at ambient temperature, J. Build. Eng., 20 (2018), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.005
    [10] W. P. Zakka, N. H. A. S. Lim, M. C. Khun, A scientometric review of geopolymer concrete, J. Cleaner Prod., 280 (2021), 124353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124353 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124353
    [11] P. Zhang, K. Wang, Q. Li, J. Wang, Y. Ling, Fabrication and engineering properties of concretes based on geopolymers/alkali-activated binders–––a review, J. Cleaner Prod., 258 (2020), 120896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120896 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120896
    [12] A. Ahmad, W. Ahmad, F. Aslam, P. Joyklad, Compressive strength prediction of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete via advanced machine learning techniques, Case Stud. Constr. Mater., 16 (2022), e00840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00840 doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00840
    [13] Y. Qiu, J. Zhou, Short-term rockburst prediction in underground project: insights from an explainable and interpretable ensemble learning model, Acta Geotech., 18 (2023), 6655–6685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-01988-0 doi: 10.1007/s11440-023-01988-0
    [14] F. Farooq, X. Jin, M. F. Javed, A. Akbar, M. I. Shah, F. Aslam, et al., Geopolymer concrete as sustainable material: a state of the art review, Constr. Build. Mater., 306 (2021), 124762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124762 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124762
    [15] A. Hosan, S. Haque, F. Shaikh, Compressive behaviour of sodium and potassium activators synthetized fly ash geopolymer at elevated temperatures: a comparative study, J. Build. Eng., 8 (2016), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2016.10.005
    [16] H. L. Muttashar, M. A. M. Ariffin, M. N. Hussein, M. W. Hussin, S. B. Ishaq, Self-compacting geopolymer concrete with spend garnet as sand replacement, J. Build. Eng., 15 (2018), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.007
    [17] K. Z. Farhan, M. A. M. Johari, R. Demirboğa, Assessment of important parameters involved in the synthesis of geopolymer composites: a review, Constr. Build. Mater., 264 (2020), 120276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120276 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120276
    [18] C. Herath, C. Gunasekara, D. W. Law, S. Setunge, Long term mechanical performance of nano-engineered high volume fly ash concrete, J. Build. Eng., 43 (2021), 103168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103168 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103168
    [19] W. Ahmad, A. Ahmad, K. A. Ostrowski, F. Aslam, P. Joyklad, P. Zajdel, Application of advanced machine learning approaches to predict the compressive strength of concrete containing supplementary cementitious materials, Materials, 14 (2021), 5762. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14195762 doi: 10.3390/ma14195762
    [20] H. K. Tchakouté, C. H. Rüscher, S. Kong, N. Ranjbar, Synthesis of sodium waterglass from white rice husk ash as an activator to produce metakaolin-based geopolymer cements, J. Build. Eng., 6 (2016), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.04.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2016.04.007
    [21] A. Ahmad, W. Ahmad, K. Chaiyasarn, K. A. Ostrowski, F. Aslam, P. Zajdel, et al., Prediction of geopolymer concrete compressive strength using novel machine learning algorithms, Polymers, 13 (2021), 3389. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13193389 doi: 10.3390/polym13193389
    [22] B. B. Jindal, Investigations on the properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete with mineral admixtures: a review, Constr. Build. Mater., 227 (2019), 116644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.025 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.025
    [23] M. S. Reddy, P. Dinakar, B. H. Rao, Mix design development of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete, J. Build. Eng., 20 (2018), 712–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.010
    [24] J. Zhou, X. Shen, Y. Qiu, X. Shi, K. Du, Microseismic location in hardrock metal mines by machine learning models based on hyperparameter optimization using bayesian optimizer, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 56 (2023), 8771–8788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03483-0 doi: 10.1007/s00603-023-03483-0
    [25] C. L. Wong, K. H. Mo, U. J. Alengaram, S. P. Yap, Mechanical strength and permeation properties of high calcium fly ash-based geopolymer containing recycled brick powder, J. Build. Eng., 32 (2020), 101655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101655 doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101655
    [26] S. K. John, Y. Nadir, K. Girija, Effect of source materials, additives on the mechanical properties and durability of fly ash and fly ash-slag geopolymer mortar: a review, Constr. Build. Mater., 280 (2021), 122443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122443 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122443
    [27] Y. Zou, C. Zheng, A. Alzahrani, W. Ahmad, A. Ahmad, A. Mohamed, et al., Evaluation of artificial intelligence methods to estimate the compressive strength of geopolymers, Gels, 8 (2022), 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels8050271 doi: 10.3390/gels8050271
    [28] J. Huang, M. Zhou, H. Yuan, M. M. S. Sabri, X. Li, Prediction of the compressive strength for cement-based materials with metakaolin based on the hybrid machine learning method, Materials, 15 (2022), 3500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103500 doi: 10.3390/ma15103500
    [29] B. Indraratna, D. J. Armaghani, A. G. Correia, H. Hunt, T. Ngo, Prediction of resilient modulus of ballast under cyclic loading using machine learning techniques, Transp. Geotech., 38 (2023), 100895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100895 doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100895
    [30] S. Medawela, D. J. Armaghani, B. Indraratna, R. K. Rowe, N. Thamwattana, Development of an advanced machine learning model to predict the pH of groundwater in permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) located in acidic terrain, Comput. Geotech., 161 (2023), 105557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105557 doi: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2023.105557
    [31] D. J. Armaghani, P. G. Asteris, A comparative study of ANN and ANFIS models for the prediction of cement-based mortar materials compressive strength, Neural Comput. Appl., 33 (2021), 4501–4532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05244-4 doi: 10.1007/s00521-020-05244-4
    [32] A. D. Skentou, A. Bardhan, A. Mamou, M. E. Lemonis, G. Kumar, P. Samui, et al., Closed-form equation for estimating unconfined compressive strength of granite from three non-destructive tests using soft computing models, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 56 (2023), 487–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-022-03046-9 doi: 10.1007/s00603-022-03046-9
    [33] W. Mahmood, A. S. Mohammed, P. G. Asteris, R. Kurda, D. J. Armaghani, Modeling flexural and compressive strengths behaviour of cement-grouted sands modified with water reducer polymer, Appl. Sci., 12 (2022), 1016. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031016 doi: 10.3390/app12031016
    [34] P. G. Asteris, P. B. Lourenço, P. C. Roussis, C. E. Adami, D. J. Armaghani, L. Cavaleri, et al., Revealing the nature of metakaolin-based concrete materials using artificial intelligence techniques, Constr. Build. Mater., 322 (2022), 126500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126500 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126500
    [35] M. S. Barkhordari, D. J. Armaghani, P. G. Asteris, Structural damage identification using ensemble deep convolutional neural network models, CMES-Comp. Model. Eng. Sci., 134 (2023), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2022.020840 doi: 10.32604/cmes.2022.020840
    [36] L. Cavaleri, M. S. Barkhordari, C. C. Repapis, D. J. Armaghani, D. V. Ulrikh, P. G. Asteris, Convolution-based ensemble learning algorithms to estimate the bond strength of the corroded reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 359 (2022), 129504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129504 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129504
    [37] M. Koopialipoor, P. G. Asteris, A. S. Mohammed, D. E. Alexakis, A. Mamou, D. J. Armaghani, Introducing stacking machine learning approaches for the prediction of rock deformation, Transp. Geotech., 34 (2022), 100756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100756 doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2022.100756
    [38] M. Parsajoo, D. J. Armaghani, A. S. Mohammed, M. Khari, S. Jahandari, Tensile strength prediction of rock material using non-destructive tests: a comparative intelligent study, Transp. Geotech., 31 (2021), 100652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100652 doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100652
    [39] D. J. Armaghani, Y. Y. Ming, A. S. Mohammed, E. Momeni, H. Maizir, Effect of SVM kernel functions on bearing capacity assessment of deep foundations, J. Soft Comput. Civ. Eng., 7 (2023), 111–128. Available from: https://www.jsoftcivil.com/article_169219.html.
    [40] E. Momeni, B. He, Y. Abdi, D. J. Armaghani, Novel hybrid XGBoost model to forecast soil shear strength based on some soil index tests, CMES-Comp. Model. Eng. Sci., 136 (2023), 2527–2550. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2023.026531 doi: 10.32604/cmes.2023.026531
    [41] J. Zhou, Z. Wang, C. Li, W. Wei, S. Wang, D. J. Armaghani, et al., Hybridized random forest with population-based optimization for predicting shear properties of rock fractures, J. Comput. Sci., 72 (2023), 102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2023.102097 doi: 10.1016/j.jocs.2023.102097
    [42] J. Huang, M. Zhou, H. Yuan, M. M. Sabri, X. Li, Towards sustainable construction materials: a comparative study of prediction models for green concrete with metakaolin, Buildings, 12 (2022), 772. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060772 doi: 10.3390/buildings12060772
    [43] A. Ahmad, K. Chaiyasarn, F. Farooq, W. Ahmad, S. Suparp, F. Aslam, Compressive strength prediction via gene expression programming (Gep) and artificial neural network (ann) for concrete containing rca, Buildings, 11 (2021), 324. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080324 doi: 10.3390/buildings11080324
    [44] H. Song, A. Ahmad, K. A. Ostrowski, M. Dudek, Analyzing the compressive strength of ceramic waste-based concrete using experiment and artificial neural network (Ann) approach, Materials, 14 (2021), 4518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164518 doi: 10.3390/ma14164518
    [45] H. Nguyen, T. Vu, T. P. Vo, H. T. Thai, Efficient machine learning models for prediction of concrete strengths, Constr. Build. Mater., 266 (2021), 120950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120950 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120950
    [46] J. Huang, Y. Sun, J. Zhang, Reduction of computational error by optimizing SVR kernel coefficients to simulate concrete compressive strength through the use of a human learning optimization algorithm, Eng. Comput., 38 (2022), 3151–3168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01305-x doi: 10.1007/s00366-021-01305-x
    [47] P. Sarir, J. Chen, P. G. Asteris, D. J. Armaghani, M. M. Tahir, Developing GEP tree-based, neuro-swarm, and whale optimization models for evaluation of bearing capacity of concrete-filled steel tube columns, Eng. Comput., 37 (2021), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00808-y doi: 10.1007/s00366-019-00808-y
    [48] F. R. Balf, H. M. Kordkheili, A. M. Kordkheili, A new method for predicting the ingredients of self-compacting concrete (SCC) including fly ash (FA) using data envelopment analysis (DEA), Arabian J. Sci. Eng., 46 (2021), 4439–4460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04927-3 doi: 10.1007/s13369-020-04927-3
    [49] A. Ahmad, F. Farooq, K. A. Ostrowski, K. Śliwa-Wieczorek, S. Czarnecki, Application of novel machine learning techniques for predicting the surface chloride concentration in concrete containing waste material, Materials, 14 (2021), 2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092297 doi: 10.3390/ma14092297
    [50] M. Azimi-Pour, H. Eskandari-Naddaf, A. Pakzad, Linear and non-linear SVM prediction for fresh properties and compressive strength of high volume fly ash self-compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 230 (2020), 117021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117021 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117021
    [51] P. Saha, P. Debnath, P. Thomas, Prediction of fresh and hardened properties of self-compacting concrete using support vector regression approach, Neural Comput. Appl., 32 (2020), 7995–8010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04267-w doi: 10.1007/s00521-019-04267-w
    [52] A. A. Shahmansouri, H. A. Bengar, E. Jahani, Predicting compressive strength and electrical resistivity of eco-friendly concrete containing natural zeolite via GEP algorithm, Constr. Build. Mater., 229 (2019), 116883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116883 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116883
    [53] J. Huang, M. M. Sabri, D. V. Ulrikh, M. Ahmad, K. A. Alsaffar, Predicting the compressive strength of the cement-fly ash–slag ternary concrete using the firefly algorithm (FA) and random forest (RF) hybrid machine-learning method, Materials, 15 (2022), 4193. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15124193 doi: 10.3390/ma15124193
    [54] F. Aslam, F. Farooq, M. N. Amin, K. Khan, A. Waheed, A. Akbar, et al., Applications of gene expression programming for estimating compressive strength of high-strength concrete, Adv. Civ. Eng., 2020 (2020), 8850535. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8850535 doi: 10.1155/2020/8850535
    [55] F. Farooq, M. N. Amin, K. Khan, M. R. Sadiq, M. F. Javed, F. Aslam, et al., A comparative study of random forest and genetic engineering programming for the prediction of compressive strength of high strength concrete (HSC), Appl. Sci., 10 (2020), 7330. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207330 doi: 10.3390/app10207330
    [56] P. G. Asteris, K. G. Kolovos, Self-compacting concrete strength prediction using surrogate models, Neural Comput. Appl., 31 (2019), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3007-7 doi: 10.1007/s00521-017-3007-7
    [57] S. Selvaraj, S. Sivaraman, Prediction model for optimized self-compacting concrete with fly ash using response surface method based on fuzzy classification, Neural Comput. Appl., 31 (2019), 1365–1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3575-1 doi: 10.1007/s00521-018-3575-1
    [58] J. Zhang, G. Ma, Y. Huang, J. Sun, F. Aslani, B. Nener, Modelling uniaxial compressive strength of lightweight self-compacting concrete using random forest regression, Constr. Build. Mater., 210 (2019), 713–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.189 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.189
    [59] A. Kaveh, T. Bakhshpoori, S. M. Hamze-Ziabari, M5' and mars based prediction models for properties of selfcompacting concrete containing fly ash, Period. Polytech., Civ. Eng., 62 (2018), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.10799 doi: 10.3311/PPci.10799
    [60] D. Sathyan, K. B. Anand, A. J. Prakash, B. Premjith, Modeling the fresh and hardened stage properties of self-compacting concrete using random kitchen sink algorithm, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater., 12 (2018), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0246-7 doi: 10.1186/s40069-018-0246-7
    [61] B. Vakhshouri, S. Nejadi, Prediction of compressive strength of self-compacting concrete by ANFIS models, Neurocomputing, 280 (2018), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.09.099 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.09.099
    [62] O. B. Douma, B. Boukhatem, M. Ghrici, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Prediction of properties of self-compacting concrete containing fly ash using artificial neural network, Neural Comput. Appl., 28 (2017), 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2368-7 doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2368-7
    [63] M. A. Yaman, M. A. Elaty, M. Taman, Predicting the ingredients of self compacting concrete using artificial neural network, Alexandria Eng. J., 56 (2017), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.04.007 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2017.04.007
    [64] A. Ahmad, F. Farooq, P. Niewiadomski, K. Ostrowski, A. Akbar, F. Aslam, et al., Prediction of compressive strength of fly ash based concrete using individual and ensemble algorithm, Materials, 14 (2021), 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14040794 doi: 10.3390/ma14040794
    [65] F. Farooq, W. Ahmed, A. Akbar, F. Aslam, R. Alyousef, Predictive modeling for sustainable high-performance concrete from industrial wastes: a comparison and optimization of models using ensemble learners, J. Cleaner Prod., 292 (2021), 126032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126032 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126032
    [66] R. Buši, M. Benšić, I. Miličević, K. Strukar, Prediction models for the mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete with recycled rubber and silica fume, 13 (2020), 1821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13081821
    [67] M. F. Javed, F. Farooq, S. A. Memon, A. Akbar, M. A. Khan, F. Aslam, et al., New prediction model for the ultimate axial capacity of concrete-filled steel tubes: an evolutionary approach, Crystals, 10 (2020), 741. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst10090741 doi: 10.3390/cryst10090741
    [68] M. Nematzadeh, A. A. Shahmansouri, M. Fakoor, Post-fire compressive strength of recycled PET aggregate concrete reinforced with steel fibers : optimization and prediction via RSM and GEP, Constr. Build. Mater., 252 (2020), 119057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119057 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119057
    [69] K. Güçlüer, A. Özbeyaz, S. Göymen, O. Günaydın, A comparative investigation using machine learning methods for concrete compressive strength estimation, Mater. Today Commun., 27 (2021), 102278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102278 doi: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102278
    [70] A. Ahmad, K. A. Ostrowski, M. Maślak, F. Farooq, I. Mehmood, A. Nafees, Comparative study of supervised machine learning algorithms for predicting the compressive strength of concrete at high temperature, Materials, 14 (2021), 4222. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154222 doi: 10.3390/ma14154222
    [71] P. G. Asteris, A. D. Skentou, A. Bardhan, P. Samui, K. Pilakoutas, Predicting concrete compressive strength using hybrid ensembling of surrogate machine learning models, Cem. Concr. Res., 145 (2021), 106449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106449 doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106449
    [72] W. Emad, A. S. Mohammed, R. Kurda, K. Ghafor, L. Cavaleri, S. M. A. Qaidi, et al., Prediction of concrete materials compressive strength using surrogate models, Structures, 46 (2022), 1243–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2022.11.002
    [73] Z. Shen, A. F. Deifalla, P. Kamiński, A. Dyczko, Compressive strength evaluation of ultra-high-strength concrete by machine learning, Materials, 15 (2022), 3523. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103523 doi: 10.3390/ma15103523
    [74] A. Kumar, H. C. Arora, N. R. Kapoor, M. A. Mohammed, K. Kumar, A. Majumdar, et al., Compressive strength prediction of lightweight concrete: machine learning models, Sustainability, 14 (2022), 2404. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042404 doi: 10.3390/su14042404
    [75] D. K. I. Jaf, P. I. Abdulrahman, A. S. Mohammed, R. Kurda, S. M. A. Qaidi, P. G. Asteris, Machine learning techniques and multi-scale models to evaluate the impact of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and calcium oxide (CaO) in fly ash on the compressive strength of green concrete, Constr. Build. Mater., 400 (2023), 132604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132604 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132604
    [76] W. Mahmood, A. S. Mohammed, P. G. Asteris, H. Ahmed, Soft computing technics to predict the early-age compressive strength of flowable ordinary Portland cement, Soft Comput., 27 (2023), 3133–3150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07505-x doi: 10.1007/s00500-022-07505-x
    [77] R. Ali, M. Muayad, A. S. Mohammed, P. G. Asteris, Analysis and prediction of the effect of Nanosilica on the compressive strength of concrete with different mix proportions and specimen sizes using various numerical approaches, Struct. Concr., 24 (2023), 4161–4184. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200718 doi: 10.1002/suco.202200718
    [78] J. Huang, J. Zhang, X. Li, Y. Qiao, R. Zhang, G. S. Kumar, Investigating the effects of ensemble and weight optimization approaches on neural networks' performance to estimate the dynamic modulus of asphalt concrete, Road Mater. Pavement Des., 24 (2023), 1939–1959. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2022.2112061 doi: 10.1080/14680629.2022.2112061
    [79] J. Zhou, S. Huang, Y. Qiu, Optimization of random forest through the use of MVO, GWO and MFO in evaluating the stability of underground entry-type excavations, Tunnelling Underground Space Technol., 124 (2022), 104494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2022.104494 doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2022.104494
    [80] D. V. Dao, S. H. Trinh, H. B. Ly, B. T. Pham, Prediction of compressive strength of geopolymer concrete using entirely steel slag aggregates: novel hybrid artificial intelligence approaches, Appl. Sci., 9 (2019), 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061113 doi: 10.3390/app9061113
    [81] Q. A. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Huang, Simulation of the compressive strength of cemented tailing backfill through the use of firefly algorithm and random forest model, Shock Vib., 2021 (2021), 5536998. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5536998 doi: 10.1155/2021/5536998
    [82] X. Liang, X. Yu, G. Ding, Y. Jing, J. Huang, Environmental and mechanical effects of rubberised open-graded asphalt mixtures incorporating with titanium dioxide: a laboratory investigation, Int. J. Pavement Eng., 24 (2023), 2241604. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2023.2241604 doi: 10.1080/10298436.2023.2241604
    [83] X. Liang, X. Yu, B. Xu, C. Chen, G. Ding, Y. Jin, et al., Storage stability and compatibility in foamed warm-mix asphalt (FWMA) containing recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) binder, J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2024. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEE7/MTENG-16468 doi: 10.1061/JMCEE7/MTENG-16468
    [84] G. Gu, F. Xu, X. Huang, S. Ruan, C. Peng, J. Lin, Foamed geopolymer: the relationship between rheological properties of geopolymer paste and pore-formation mechanism, J. Cleaner Prod., 277 (2020), 123238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123238 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123238
    [85] J. Huang, J. Xue, Optimization of SVR functions for flyrock evaluation in mine blasting operations, Environ. Earth Sci., 81 (2022), 434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10523-5 doi: 10.1007/s12665-022-10523-5
    [86] J. Huang, J. Zhang, Y. Gao, H. Liu, Intelligently predict the rock joint shear strength using the support vector regression and firefly algorithm, Lithosphere, 2021 (2021), 2467126. https://doi.org/10.2113/2021/2467126 doi: 10.2113/2021/2467126
    [87] J. Zhou, X. Shen, Y. Qiu, X. Shi, M. Khandelwal, Cross-correlation stacking-based microseismic source location using three metaheuristic optimization algorithms, Tunnelling Underground Space Technol., 126 (2022), 104570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2022.104570 doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2022.104570
    [88] X. Wang, S. Hosseini, D. J. Armaghani, E. T. Mohamad, Data-driven optimized artificial neural network technique for prediction of flyrock induced by boulder blasting, Mathematics, 11 (2023), 2358. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11102358 doi: 10.3390/math11102358
    [89] S. Hosseini, R. Poormirzaee, M. Hajihassani, Application of reliability-based back-propagation causality-weighted neural networks to estimate air-overpressure due to mine blasting, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 115 (2022), 105281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105281 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105281
    [90] S. Hosseini, R. Pourmirzaee, D. J. Armaghani, M. M. S. Sabri, Prediction of ground vibration due to mine blasting in a surface lead–zinc mine using machine learning ensemble techniques, Sci. Rep., 13 (2023), 6591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33796-7 doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33796-7
    [91] S. Hosseini, M. Monjezi, E. Bakhtavar, A. Mousavi, Prediction of dust emission due to open pit mine blasting using a hybrid artificial neural network, Nat. Resour. Res., 30 (2021), 4773–4788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-021-09930-5 doi: 10.1007/s11053-021-09930-5
    [92] S. Hosseini, A. Mousavi, M. Monjezi, Prediction of blast-induced dust emissions in surface mines using integration of dimensional analysis and multivariate regression analysis, Arabian J. Geosci., 15 (2022), 163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-09376-2 doi: 10.1007/s12517-021-09376-2
    [93] H. I. Erdal, Two-level and hybrid ensembles of decision trees for high performance concrete compressive strength prediction, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 26 (2013), 1689–1697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2013.03.014 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2013.03.014
    [94] W. B. Chaabene, M. Flah, M. L. Nehdi, Machine learning prediction of mechanical properties of concrete: critical review, Constr. Build. Mater., 260 (2020), 119889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119889 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119889
    [95] L. Breiman, Random forests, Mach. Learn., 45 (2001), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
    [96] A. Liaw, M. Wiener, Classification and regression by randomForest, R News, 2 (2002), 18–22.
    [97] T. Chen, C. Guestrin, XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, (2016), 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785
    [98] J. Zhao, S. Hosseini, Q. Chen, D. J. Armaghani, Super learner ensemble model: a novel approach for predicting monthly copper price in future, Resour. Policy, 85 (2023), 103903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103903 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103903
    [99] Q. Wang, J. Qi, S. Hosseini, H. Rasekh, J. Huang, ICA-LightGBM algorithm for predicting compressive strength of geo-polymer concrete, Buildings, 13 (2023), 2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092278 doi: 10.3390/buildings13092278
    [100] E. Bakhtavar, S. Hosseini, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Green blasting policy: simultaneous forecast of vertical and horizontal distribution of dust emissions using artificial causality-weighted neural network, J. Cleaner Prod., 283 (2021), 124562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124562 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124562
    [101] E. Bakhtavar, S. Hosseini, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Air pollution risk assessment using a hybrid fuzzy intelligent probability-based approach: mine blasting dust impacts, Nat. Resour. Res., 30 (2021), 2607–2627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-020-09810-4 doi: 10.1007/s11053-020-09810-4
    [102] S. Hosseini, R. Poormirzaee, M. Hajihassani, R. Kalatehjari, An ANN-Fuzzy cognitive map-based Z-number theory to predict flyrock induced by blasting in open-pit mines, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 55 (2022), 4373–4390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-022-02866-z doi: 10.1007/s00603-022-02866-z
    [103] R. Ali, M. Muayad, A. S. Mohammed, P. G. Asteris, Analysis and prediction of the effect of Nanosilica on the compressive strength of concrete with different mix proportions and specimen sizes using various numerical approaches, Struct. Concr., 24 (2022), 4161–4184. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200718 doi: 10.1002/suco.202200718
    [104] S. Hosseini, A. Mousavi, M. Monjezi, M. Khandelwal, Mine-to-crusher policy: planning of mine blasting patterns for environmentally friendly and optimum fragmentation using Monte Carlo simulation-based multi-objective grey wolf optimization approach, Resour. Policy, 79 (2022), 103087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103087 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103087
    [105] S. Hosseini, R. Poormirzaee, M. Hajihassani, An uncertainty hybrid model for risk assessment and prediction of blast-induced rock mass fragmentation, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 160 (2022), 105250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2022.105250 doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2022.105250
    [106] S. Hosseini, J. Khatti, B. O. Taiwo, Y. Fissha, K. S. Grover, H. Ikeda, et al., Assessment of the ground vibration during blasting in mining projects using different computational approaches, Sci. Rep., 13 (2023), 18582. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46064-5 doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46064-5
    [107] S. Hosseini, S. Javanshir, H. Sabeti, P. Tahmasebizadeh, Mathematical-based gene expression programming (GEP): a novel model to predict zinc separation from a bench-scale bioleaching process, J. Sustainable Metall., 9 (2023), 1601–1619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-023-00751-9 doi: 10.1007/s40831-023-00751-9
    [108] S. Hosseini, R. Pourmirzaee, Green policy for managing blasting induced dust dispersion in open-pit mines using probability-based deep learning algorithm, Expert Syst. Appl., 240 (2023), 122469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122469 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122469
    [109] A. I. Lawal, S. Hosseini, M. Kim, N. O. Ogunsola, S. Kwon, Prediction of factor of safety of slopes using stochastically modified ANN and classical methods: a rigorous statistical model selection approach, Nat. Hazard., 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06275-5 doi: 10.1007/s11069-023-06275-5
    [110] M. Apostolopoulou, P. G. Asteris, D. J. Armaghani, M. G. Douvika, P. B. Lourenço, L. Cavaleri, et al., Mapping and holistic design of natural hydraulic lime mortars, Cem. Concr. Res., 136 (2020), 106167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106167 doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106167
    [111] P. G. Asteris, M. Koopialipoor, D. J. Armaghani, E. A. Kotsonis, P. B. Lourenço, Prediction of cement-based mortars compressive strength using machine learning techniques, Neural Comput. Appl., 33 (2021), 13089–13121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06004-8 doi: 10.1007/s00521-021-06004-8
    [112] S. Hosseini, M. Monjezi, E. Bakhtavar, Minimization of blast-induced dust emission using gene-expression programming and grasshopper optimization algorithm: a smart mining solution based on blasting plan optimization, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, 24 (2022), 2313–2328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02327-9 doi: 10.1007/s10098-022-02327-9
    [113] Y. H. Jong, C. I. Lee, Influence of geological conditions on the powder factor for tunnel blasting, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 41 (2004), 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.095 doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.095

  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Jun Zhang, Ranran Wang, Yijun Lu, Jiandong Huang, Prediction of Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Concrete Landscape Design: Application of the Novel Hybrid RF–GWO–XGBoost Algorithm, 2024, 14, 2075-5309, 591, 10.3390/buildings14030591
    2. Shahab Hosseini, Shima Entezam, Behshad Jodeiri Shokri, Ali Mirzaghorbanali, Hadi Nourizadeh, Amin Motallebiyan, Alireza Entezam, Kevin McDougall, Warna Karunasena, Naj Aziz, Predicting grout’s uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) for fully grouted rock bolting system by applying ensemble machine learning techniques, 2024, 36, 0941-0643, 18387, 10.1007/s00521-024-10128-y
    3. Qiong Tian, Yijun Lu, Ji Zhou, Shutong Song, Liming Yang, Tao Cheng, Jiandong Huang, Compressive strength of waste-derived cementitious composites using machine learning, 2024, 63, 1605-8127, 10.1515/rams-2024-0008
    4. Areeba Ishtiaq, Kashif Munir, Ali Raza, Nagwan Abdel Samee, Mona M. Jamjoom, Zahid Ullah, Product Helpfulness Detection With Novel Transformer Based BERT Embedding and Class Probability Features, 2024, 12, 2169-3536, 55905, 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3390605
    5. Sesha Choudary Yeluri, Karan Singh, Akshay Kumar, Yogesh Aggarwal, Parveen Sihag, Estimation of Compressive Strength of Rubberised Slag Based Geopolymer Concrete Using Various Machine Learning Techniques Based Models, 2024, 2228-6160, 10.1007/s40996-024-01569-5
    6. Qiong Tian, Yijun Lu, Ji Zhou, Shutong Song, Liming Yang, Tao Cheng, Jiandong Huang, Supplementary cementitious materials-based concrete porosity estimation using modeling approaches: A comparative study of GEP and MEP, 2024, 63, 1605-8127, 10.1515/rams-2023-0189
    7. Xuyang Shi, Shuzhao Chen, Qiang Wang, Yijun Lu, Shisong Ren, Jiandong Huang, Mechanical Framework for Geopolymer Gels Construction: An Optimized LSTM Technique to Predict Compressive Strength of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Gels Concrete, 2024, 10, 2310-2861, 148, 10.3390/gels10020148
    8. Ranran Wang, Jun Zhang, Yijun Lu, Jiandong Huang, Towards Designing Durable Sculptural Elements: Ensemble Learning in Predicting Compressive Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Nano-Silica Modified Concrete, 2024, 14, 2075-5309, 396, 10.3390/buildings14020396
    9. Fei Zhu, Xiangping Wu, Yijun Lu, Jiandong Huang, Understanding Penetration Attenuation of Permeable Concrete: A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Technique Based on Particle Swarm Optimization, 2024, 14, 2075-5309, 1173, 10.3390/buildings14041173
    10. Seyed Amir Mohammad Lahaghi, Behrooz Zaker, Gevork B. Gharehpetian, Venera Nurmanova, Mehdi Bagheri, 2024, A Hybrid Approach Based on LMP and VCG Mechanism to Create a Positive Interaction Between Distribution Companies and Owners of DG Units, 979-8-3503-6161-2, 192, 10.1109/icSmartGrid61824.2024.10578141
    11. Feng Bin, Shahab Hosseini, Jie Chen, Pijush Samui, Hadi Fattahi, Danial Jahed Armaghani, Proposing Optimized Random Forest Models for Predicting Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Composites, 2024, 9, 2412-3811, 181, 10.3390/infrastructures9100181
    12. Qiang Wang, Tao Cheng, Yijun Lu, Haichuan Liu, Runhua Zhang, Jiandong Huang, Underground Mine Safety and Health: A Hybrid MEREC–CoCoSo System for the Selection of Best Sensor, 2024, 24, 1424-8220, 1285, 10.3390/s24041285
    13. Ranran Wang, Jun Zhang, Yijun Lu, Shisong Ren, Jiandong Huang, Towards a Reliable Design of Geopolymer Concrete for Green Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Tree-Based and Regression-Based Models, 2024, 14, 2075-5309, 615, 10.3390/buildings14030615
    14. Zhiguo Chang, Xuyang Shi, Kaidan Zheng, Yijun Lu, Yunhui Deng, Jiandong Huang, Soft Computing Techniques to Model the Compressive Strength in Geo-Polymer Concrete: Approaches Based on an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System, 2024, 14, 2075-5309, 3505, 10.3390/buildings14113505
    15. Runhua Zhang, Tao Cheng, Yijun Lu, Hao Luo, Jiandong Huang, Evaluating and correlating asphalt binder and mixture fatigue properties considering aging conditions, 2024, 436, 09500618, 136356, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136356
    16. Qiong Tian, Yijun Lu, Ji Zhou, Shutong Song, Liming Yang, Tao Cheng, Jiandong Huang, Exploring the viability of AI-aided genetic algorithms in estimating the crack repair rate of self-healing concrete, 2024, 63, 1605-8127, 10.1515/rams-2023-0179
    17. Muhammad Fawad, Hisham Alabduljabbar, Furqan Farooq, Taoufik Najeh, Yaser Gamil, Bilal Ahmed, Indirect prediction of graphene nanoplatelets-reinforced cementitious composites compressive strength by using machine learning approaches, 2024, 14, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-024-64204-3
    18. Tran Nhat Minh, Nguyen Tan Khoa, Nguyen Ninh Thuy, Le Anh Tuan, Evaluating Flexural Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete using the ResNet Approach and Sensitivity Analysis, 2024, 14, 1792-8036, 18099, 10.48084/etasr.8912
    19. Enhui Li, Zixi Wang, Jin Liu, Jiandong Huang, Sustainable Smart Education Based on AI Models Incorporating Firefly Algorithm to Evaluate Further Education, 2024, 16, 2071-1050, 10845, 10.3390/su162410845
    20. Xiaoyan Wang, Yantao Zhong, Fei Zhu, Jiandong Huang, Digital Industrial Design Method in Architectural Design by Machine Learning Optimization: Towards Sustainable Construction Practices of Geopolymer Concrete, 2024, 14, 2075-5309, 3998, 10.3390/buildings14123998
    21. Fahimeh Ahmadi, Mohsen Hajihassani, Stefanos Papanikolaou, Panagiotis G. Asteris, Data-driven optimized XGBoost and LightGBM for predicting the Judd-Ofelt parameters in rare-earth doped phosphate-based glasses, 2025, 02728842, 10.1016/j.ceramint.2025.01.177
    22. Malika Ouacifi, Karim Ferroudji, Fouad Chebbara, Mounir Amir, Mohamed Lashab, Raed A. Abd-Alhameed, 2024, A Decision Tree Model for Inset-Fed Microstrip Patch Antenna, 979-8-3503-8848-0, 1, 10.1109/ECTE-Tech62477.2024.10851155
    23. Hongchao Li, Shahab Hosseini, Behrouz Gordan, Jian Zhou, Sajid Ullah, Dimensionless Machine Learning: Dimensional Analysis to Improve LSSVM and ANN models and predict bearing capacity of circular foundations, 2025, 58, 1573-7462, 10.1007/s10462-024-11099-1
    24. Wei Ge, Ramindu De Silva, Yanan Fan, Scott A. Sisson, Martina H. Stenzel, Machine Learning in Polymer Research, 2025, 0935-9648, 10.1002/adma.202413695
    25. Ezzeddin Bakhtavar, Shahab Hosseini, Haroon R. Mian, Kasun Hewage, Rehan Sadiq, Robust prediction of water arsenic levels downstream of gold mines affected by acid mine drainage using hybrid ensemble machine learning and soft computing, 2025, 489, 03043894, 137665, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.137665
    26. Charuta Waghmare, Mohammad Gulfam Pathan, Syed Aamir Hussain, Tripti Gupta, Anshul Nikhade, Monali Wagh, Khalid Ansari, Machine learning based prediction of compressive strength in roller compacted concrete: a comparative study with PDP analysis, 2025, 1563-0854, 10.1007/s42107-025-01310-1
    27. Patryk Ziolkowski, Influence of Optimization Algorithms and Computational Complexity on Concrete Compressive Strength Prediction Machine Learning Models for Concrete Mix Design, 2025, 18, 1996-1944, 1386, 10.3390/ma18061386
    28. Mohammed Salem Atoum, Ala Abdulsalam Alarood, Eesa Alsolami, Adamu Abubakar, Ahmad K. Al Hwaitat, Izzat Alsmadi, Cybersecurity Intelligence Through Textual Data Analysis: A Framework Using Machine Learning and Terrorism Datasets, 2025, 17, 1999-5903, 182, 10.3390/fi17040182
    29. Yin Junjia, Aidi Hizami Alias, Nuzul Azam Haron, Nabilah Abu Bakar, Predicting Building Primary Energy Use Based on Machine Learning: Evidence from Portland, 2024, 11, 2409-9821, 124, 10.15377/2409-9821.2024.11.7
    30. David Sinkhonde, Derrick Mirindi, Ismael Dabakuyo, Tajebe Bezabih, Destine Mashava, Frederic Mirindi, Applications of machine learning algorithms on the compressive strength of laterite blocks made with metakaolin-based geopolymer and sugarcane molasses, 2025, 3, 29497507, 100212, 10.1016/j.wmb.2025.100212
    31. Qiang Wang, Jianwei Xiang, Pengfei Yue, Shihua Zhang, Yijun Lu, Runhua Zhang, Jiandong Huang, Flyrock distance prediction using a hybrid LightGBM ensemble learning and two nature-based metaheuristic algorithms, 2025, 16747755, 10.1016/j.jrmge.2025.02.025
    32. Fahimeh Ahmadi, Mohsen Hajihassani, Tryfon Sivenas, Stefanos Papanikolaou, Panagiotis G. Asteris, Advanced Machine Learning Methods for the Prediction of the Optical Parameters of Tellurite Glasses, 2025, 13, 2227-7080, 211, 10.3390/technologies13060211
    33. Shing Mei Chiew, Izni Syahrizal Ibrahim, Lee Chong Tang, Wee Siang So, Kai Siong Ang, Chau Khun Ma, Evaluating manufactured sand as a sustainable alternative in high‐strength concrete: An experimental and machine learning study, 2025, 1464-4177, 10.1002/suco.70179
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering
4.4

Metrics

Article views(3263) PDF downloads(265) Cited by(33)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline
Abstract
   Introduction
   Data analysis
   Materials and methods
   Date preparation
   Results and discussion
   Limitations and future works
   Conclusions
Use of AI tools declaration
Acknowledgments
Conflict of interest
References

Figures and Tables

Figures(17)  /  Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Copyright © AIMS Press

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog