Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Machine learning in concrete strength simulations: Multi-nation data

analytics
Jui-Sheng Chou a,⇑, Chih-Fong Tsai b, Anh-Duc Pham a,c, Yu-Hsin Lu d
a
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
b
Department of Information Management, National Central University, Taiwan
c
Faculty of Project Management, The University of Danang, University of Science and Technology, Vietnam
d
Department of Accounting, Feng Chia University, Taiwan

h i g h l i g h t s

 This comprehensive study used advanced machine learning techniques to predict concrete compressive strength.
 Model performance is evaluated through multi-nation data simulation experiments.
 The prediction accuracy of ensemble technique is superior to that of single learning models.
 This study developed advanced learning approaches for solving civil engineering problems.
 The approach also has potential applications in material sciences.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly used to simulate the behavior of concrete materials
Received 30 May 2014 and have become an important research area. The compressive strength of high performance concrete
Received in revised form 5 September 2014 (HPC) is a major civil engineering problem. However, the validity of reported relationships between con-
Accepted 24 September 2014
crete ingredients and mechanical strength is questionable. This paper provides a comprehensive study
Available online 1 November 2014
using advanced ML techniques to predict the compressive strength of HPC. Specifically, individual and
ensemble learning classifiers are constructed from four different base learners, including multilayer per-
Keywords:
ceptron (MLP) neural network, support vector machine (SVM), classification and regression tree (CART),
High performance concrete
Compressive strength
and linear regression (LR). For ensemble models that integrate multiple classifiers, the voting, bagging,
Multi-nation data analysis and stacking combination methods are considered. The behavior simulation capabilities of these tech-
Machine learning niques are investigated using concrete data from several countries. The comparison results show that
Ensemble classifiers ensemble learning techniques are better than learning techniques used individually to predict HPC com-
Prediction pressive strength. Although the two single best learning models are SVM and MLP, the stacking-based
ensemble model composed of MLP/CART, SVM, and LR in the first level and SVM in the second level often
achieves the best performance measures. This study validates the applicability of ML, voting, bagging, and
stacking techniques for simple and efficient simulations of concrete compressive strength.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
An important research problem in materials science is predict-
ing the mechanical properties of construction materials [1]. For
many years, the use of high performance concrete (HPC) in various
structural applications has markedly increased [2]. Cement materi-
als such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, metakaolin, and silica fume
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 2737 6321; fax: +886 2 2737 6606.
E-mail addresses: jschou@mail.ntust.edu.tw (J.-S. Chou), cftsai@mgt.ncu.edu.tw
(C.-F. Tsai), paduc@dut.udn.vn (A.-D. Pham), luyh@fcu.edu.tw (Y.-H. Lu).
are often used to increase the compressive strength and durability
of HPC [3–5]. In terms of concrete mix design and quality control,
compressive strength is generally considered the most important
quality of HPC. Developing accurate and reliable compressive
strength prediction models can save time and costs by providing
designers and structural engineers with vital data. Thus, accurate
and early prediction of concrete strength is a critical issue in con-
crete construction.
Concrete compressive strength (CCS) is usually predicted using
linear or non-linear regression methods [3,6–8]. The general form
of the regression method is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.054
0950-0618/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
772 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780
y ¼ f ðbi  xi Þ
where y, f, bi and xi are the CCS, linear or nonlinear function, regres-
sion coefficients and concrete attributes, respectively.
However, obtaining an accurate regression equation when
using these empirical-based models is difficult. Moreover, several
factors that affect the compressive strength of HPC differ from
those that affect the compressive strength of conventional con-
crete. Therefore, regression analysis may be unsuitable for predict-
ing CCS [9].
To compensate for the drawbacks of conventional models,
machine learning algorithms (i.e., neural networks, classification
and regression tree, linear regression, or support vector machine
(SVM)) as baseline models have been applied in evolutionary or
hybrid approaches to developing accurate and effective models
for predicting CCS [10]. Machine learning, which is a branch of arti-
ficial intelligence (AI), can be used not only in knowledge-genera-
tion tools, but also in general information-modeling tools for
conventional statistical techniques [11]. The ML models approxi-
mate the relationships between the inputs and outputs based on
a measured set of data.
Recently, the use of ML-based applications has increased in
many areas of civil engineering, ranging from engineering design
to project planning [11–15]. Other material science problems that
have been solved by ML include mixture design, predicting
mechanical properties, or fault diagnosis [10,14,16–19]. Particu-
larly, ML-based solutions using learning mechanisms readily avail-
able in WEKA software1 often provide a good alternative approach
to solving prediction problems.
For example, Chou et al. proposed several supervised learning
models for predicting CCS. Their analytical results indicated that
multiple additive regression trees achieve the highest predictive
accuracy [20]. Moreover, Yan and Shi reported that SVM was better
than other models for predicting elastic modulus of normal and
high strength concrete [21]. Notably, artificial neural networks
(ANNs) are used to construct mapping functions for predicting
CCS [19,22]. Thus, ML techniques such as SVM and ANN are fre-
quently used in prediction models. However, no single model has
consistently proven superior.
Conversely, ensemble approaches that combine multiple learn-
ing classifiers (or prediction models) have been proposed to
improve the performance of single learning techniques [23,24].
The three methods of combining multiple prediction models into
a single model are voting, bagging, and stacking combination
methods [25–27]. However, a literature review shows no studies
that have compared individual models and ensemble learning
techniques for predicting the compressive strength of HPC.
Particularly, related works only develop their prediction models
based on single statistical or machine learning techniques; it is
unknown that whether the prediction models based on ensemble
learning techniques can perform better than single ones in the
problem of HPC compressive strength prediction.
Therefore, individual and ensemble ML techniques were com-
pared in this study to identify the best model for predicting the
mechanical properties of HPC. Specifically, four well-known indi-
vidual ML techniques are compared: multilayer perceptron neural
network, SVM, classification and regression tree, and linear regres-
sion. Additionally, the voting, bagging, and stacking integration
methods of combining individual models are examined in terms
of the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE)
and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) via a synthesis index.
Meanwhile, cross validation method [28] is used to avoid bias in
the experimental datasets.
1
http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/
ð1Þ To sum up, the contribution of this paper is two-fold. The first
one is to compare the performance of single and ensemble tech-
niques, which is not given thorough investigation in HPC compres-
sive strength prediction. The second one is the identified best
prediction model, which provides the lowest error rate, can be
used for not only the practical purpose, but also future researches
as the baseline prediction model to compare with other advanced
models.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The study context
is introduced by a brief literature review, including studies of CCS
prediction and some well-known ML applications. The methodol-
ogy section then describes individual and ensemble ML schemes
and evaluation methods. The modeling experiments section dis-
cusses the experimental settings and compares the prediction
results among individual and ensemble ML models of HPC com-
pressive strength. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the findings
and conclusions.
2. Literature review
The use of computer-aided modeling for predicting the
mechanical properties of construction materials is growing [12].
The many prediction techniques proposed so far include empirical
models, statistical techniques and artificial intelligence algorithms
[3,8,10,13,21,29]. Some linear or non-linear regression analyses
have achieved good prediction accuracy. Zain and Abd, for
instance, used multivariate power equations to predict the
strength of high performance concrete [8]. Similarly, Aciti devel-
oped a regression model for estimating concrete strength through
non-destructive testing methods and then performed statistical
tests to verify the model [7].
However, predicting the behavior of HPC is relatively more dif-
ficult than predicting the behavior of conventional concrete. Since
the relationship between components and concrete properties is
highly non-linear, mathematically modeling the compressive
strength of HPC based on available data is difficult [30,31]. There-
fore, conventional methods are often unsuitable for predicting con-
crete compressive strength [9]. Since conventional materials
models are inadequate for simulating complex non-linear behav-
iors and uncertainties, researchers have proposed various AI tech-
niques for enhancing prediction accuracy [9,13,15,20,21].
Boukhatem et al. showed that simulation models, decision support
systems, and AI techniques are useful and powerful tools for solv-
ing complex problems in concrete technology [12].
Notably, researchers have applied or evaluated the capability of
ANNs to predict strength and other concrete behaviors [29,30,32–
34]. Ni and Wang, for instance, used multi-layer feed-forward neu-
ral networks to predict 28-day CCS based on various factors [32].
Altun et al. further showed that the ANN was superior to regression
method in estimating CCS [29]. Yeh also successfully used ANN to
predict the slump of concrete with fly ash and blast furnace slag
[30]. The use of an adaptive probabilistic neural network for
improving accuracy in predicting CCS was studied by Lee et al. [35].
Meanwhile, the SVM has excellent generalization capability
when solving non-linear problems. The SVM can also overcome
the problem of small sample size. An SVM analysis was used to
estimate the temperatures at which concrete structures are dam-
aged by fire [14]. Moreover, Gupta investigated the potential use
of SVM for predicting CCS [18] by combining radial basis function
with SVM. Yan and Shi used SVM to predict the elastic modulus of
normal and high strength concrete. The analytical results showed
that the SVM outperformed other models [21].
Similarly, evolutionary algorithm-based methodologies have
been used for knowledge discovery. Cheng et al. proposed an
advanced hybrid AI model that fused fuzzy logic, weight SVM
 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780 773

and fast messy genetic algorithms to predict compressive strength Dwji ðhÞ ¼ gdpi xpi þ aDwji ðh  1Þ ð5Þ
in HPC [16]. Comparisons showed that their model was better than where g is the learning rate parameter, dpi is the propagated error, xpi is the output of
SVM and back-propagation neural network. Additionally, Mousavi neuron i for record p, a is the momentum parameter, and Dwji(h  1) is the change in
et al. applied gene expression programming (GEP), a subset of GP, wji in the previous cycle.
to approximate the compressive strength in various HPC mixes
3.1.2. Support vector machine
[36]. The prediction performance of the optimal GEP model was
The SVM, which was developed by Vapnik in 1995 [41], is widely used for clas-
superior to that of regression-based models. Yeh and Lien com- sification, forecasting and regression. The high learning capabilities of SVMs have
bined an operation tree and genetic algorithm into a proposed been confirmed in the civil engineering field [14,15,18,21]. In this supervised learn-
Genetic Operation Tree (GOT) for automatically obtaining self- ing method, SVMs are generated from the input–output mapping functions of a
organized formulas for accurately predicting HPC compressive labeled training dataset. An SVM can be classified as either a classification target,
which has only two values (i.e., 0 and 1), or as a regression target, which has a con-
strength [9]. Their comparisons showed that GOT was more accu-
tinuous real value. The regression model of SVMs is typically used to construct the
rate than nonlinear regression formulas. Again, however, GOT was input–output model because it effectively solves nonlinear regression problems
less accurate than neural network models. [42].
As the need for prediction accuracy increases, complexity The input for the SVM regression is first mapped to an n-dimensional feature
space by using a fixed mapping procedure. Nonlinear kernel functions then fit the
approaches that of combined ML techniques. The unique advanta-
high-dimensional feature space in which input data become more separable com-
ges of ensemble learning methods are apparent when solving prob- pared to input data in the original input space. The linear model in the space is
lems involving a small sample size, high-dimensionality, and f(x,w), which can be expressed by the following equation:
complex database structures [24,27,37–39]. Chou and Tsai, for X
n
example, improved accuracy in predicting HPC compressive f ðx; xÞ ¼ wj g j ðxÞ þ b ð6Þ
j¼1
strength by using a novel hierarchical approach that combined
classification and regression technique [23]. where gj(x) is a set of nonlinear transformations from the input space, b is a bias
Generally, various ensemble approaches may prove to be term, and w denotes the weight vector estimated by minimizing the regularized risk
function that includes the empirical risk.
efficient tools for solving problems that are difficult or impossi-
Estimation quality is also measured by a loss function Le where
ble to solve by individual ML techniques or by conventional 
regression methods. However, very few studies have compared 0 ifjy  f ðx; xÞj 6 e
Le ¼ Le ðy; f ðx; xÞÞ ¼ ð7Þ
various single and ensemble learning techniques for predicting jy  f ðx; xÞj otherwise
HPC compressive strength. Therefore, the objective of this study The novel feature of SVM regression is its e-insensitive loss function for com-
was to evaluate the usefulness and identify, in terms of error puting a linear regression function for the new higher dimensional feature space
rate, the best ML technique for predicting HPC compressive while simultaneously decreasing model complexity by minimizing kxk2 . This func-
tion is introduced by including nonnegative slack variables ni and n⁄i , where
strength.
i = 1, . . ., n is used to identify training samples from the e-insensitive zone. The
SVM regression can thus be formulated by simplifying the following function:
3. Methodology
1 2
Xn
min kxk þ C ðni þ ni Þ ð8Þ
Machine learning technologies are now used in many fields to simulate materi- 2 i¼1
als behavior. For predicting HPC compressive strength, ML-based methodologies
8
include artificial neural network, classification and regression trees (CART), linear 
< yi  f ðxi ; xÞ 6 e þ ni
>
regression (LR), and SVM. The reasons of choosing these techniques are because
subject to f ðxi ; xÞ  yi 6 e þ ni
they are the most popular and applied techniques in related works (c.f. Sections 1 >
:
ni ; ni P 0; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n
and 2), and some of them are also recognized as the top data mining algorithms
[40]. This optimization problem can be transformed into a dual problem, which is
solved by
3.1. Machine learning techniques

X
nSV
3.1.1. Artificial neural network f ðxÞ ¼ ðai  ai ÞKðx; xi Þ subject to 0 6 ai 6 C; 0 6 ai 6 C ð9Þ
The ANN is a powerful tool for solving very complex problems. Essentially, the i¼1
processing elements of a neural network resemble neurons in the human brain,
which consist of many simple computational elements arranged in layers. The
where nSV is the number of support vectors. The kernel function is
use of ANNs to predict CCS has been studied intensively [5,19,30,32,34]. Multilayer
perception (MLP) neural networks are standard neural network models with an X
m

input layer containing a set of sensory input nodes representing concrete compo- Kðx; xi Þ ¼ g i ðxÞg i ðxi Þ ð10Þ
i¼1
nents, one or more hidden layers containing computation nodes, and an output
layer containing one computation node representing CCS. Like any intelligence During training, selected SVM kernel functions (i.e., linear, radial basis, polyno-
model, ANNs have learning capability. mial, or sigmoid function) are used to identify support vectors along the function
The most widely used and effective learning algorithm for training an MLP neu- surface. The default kernel parameters depend on the kernel type and on the imple-
ral network is the back-propagation (BP) algorithm, which adjusts connection mented software.
weights and bias values during training. An activated neuron in a hidden output
layer can be expressed as 3.1.3. Classification and regression tree
X The CART is a machine-learning method for constructing prediction models
netj ¼ wji xi and yj ¼ f ðnetj Þ ð2Þ from data. This decision tree method constructs classification trees or regression
trees depending on the variable type, which may be categorical or numerical
[43,44]. Breiman et al. showed that a learning tree can be optimized by using a
where netj is the activation of jth neuron, i is the set of neurons in the preceding
learning data set to prune the saturated tree and select among the obtained
layer, wji is the weight of the connection between neuron j and neuron i, xi is the out-
sequence of nested trees [43]. This process helps to retain a simple tree, which
put of neuron i, and yj is the sigmoid or logistic transfer function
ensures robustness.
1 Depending on the target field, several impurity measures can be used to locate
f ðnetj Þ ¼ ð3Þ
1 þ eknetj splits for CART models. For instance, Gini is usually applied to symbolic target fields
while the least-squared deviation method is used for automatically selecting con-
where k controls the function gradient. tinuous targets without explaining the selections. For node t in a CART, Gini index
The formula for training and updating weights wji in each cycle h is g(t) is defined as
X
wji ðhÞ ¼ wji ðh  1Þ þ Dwji ðhÞ ð4Þ gðtÞ ¼ pðjjtÞpðijtÞ ð11Þ
j–i

The change in Dwji(h) is where i and j are target field categories

774 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780

using the Gini index, only records in node t and only root nodes with valid split-pre-
dictors are used to compute Nj(t) and Nj, respectively.
Many studies have investigated the use of CART in various fields, including road
safety analysis, traffic engineering, motor vehicle emissions [45]. A novel feature of
CART is its automatic search for the best predictors and the best threshold values for
all predictors to classify target variable.

3.1.4. Linear regression

The multiple linear regression (LR) model, an extension of the simple regression
model, determines the relationship between a numerical response variable and two
or more explanatory variables [46,47]. This model specifies that an appropriate
function of the fitted probability of the event is a linear function of the observed val-
ues of the available explanatory variables.
In the literature, LR is commonly used for modeling the mechanical properties
of construction materials [6,7,20,23,48]. The computational problem addressed by
LR is fitting a hyperplane to an n-dimensional space where n is the number of inde-
pendent variables. For a system with n inputs (independent variables), X’s, and one
output (dependent variable), Y, the general least square problem is to determine
unknown parameters of the linear regression model. Because of its simplicity, this
study investigated the applicability of LR. The general formula for LR models is
shown in Eq. (13).

Y ¼ b0 þ b1 x1 þ b2 x2 þ    þ bn xn þ e ð13Þ

In the proposed model, Y is concrete compressive strength, bi is a regression

coefficient (i = 1,2,..., n), e is an error term, and X’s values represent concrete attri-
butes. Regression analysis estimates the unbiased values of the regression coeffi-
cients bi against the training data set. The LR model applies four regression
methods using ordinary least squares estimation: enter, stepwise, forward, and
backward [49]. Equation (14) is a concise vector-matrix form.

Y ¼ bx þ e ð14Þ

3.2. Ensemble models and cross-validation

Fig. 1. Ten-fold cross-validation method. The various supervised learning techniques such as SVMs, classification and
regression tree, linear regression, and multilayer perceptron neural network [40]
are typically used individually to construct single classifiers as the benchmark mod-
pðj; tÞ pðjÞNj ðtÞ X els. In ML, ensemble classifiers or combinations of (different) classifiers have proven
pðjjtÞ ¼ ; pðjtÞ ¼ ; andpðtÞ ¼ pðj; tÞ ð12Þ superior to many individual classifiers [50,51].
pðtÞ Nj j
Specifically, a combination of classifiers can compensate for errors made by the
individual classifiers on different parts of the input space. Therefore, the strategy
where p(j) is the prior probability value for category j, Nj(t) is the number of records used in ensemble systems is to create many classifiers and combine their outputs
in category j of node t, and Nj is the number of records of category j in the root node. such that the combination improves upon the performance of single classifiers in
Notably, when the improvement after a split during tree growth is determined by isolation [52].

Conventional Concrete

A W Cement FA CA

Fine Coarse
Air Water Cement
Aggregate Aggregate
Fines

A W Powder FA CA

High Performance Concrete

Fig. 2. Materials used in regular concrete and HPC.

Table 1
Sources of datasets in literature.

Dataset Data source Supplementary cementing materials Laboratory Sample size

Dataset 1 Yeh [31] Blast-furnace slag; fly ash; super-plasticizer Taiwan 1,030
Yeh [54] 103
Dataset 2 Videla et al. [55] Blast-furnace slag Chile 194
Silica fume
Dataset 3 Lam et al. [56] Fly ash; silica fume Hong Kong 144
Dataset 4 Lim et al. [57] Fly ash; silica fume; super-plasticizer South Korea 104
Dataset 5 Safarzadegan et al. [58] Metakaolin Iran 100
 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780 775

Next, the three methods combined into ensemble classifiers in this study are This study combined four individual learning techniques into an MLP ensemble,
described. an SVM ensemble, a CART ensemble, and an LR ensemble.

3.2.3. Stacking method

3.2.1. Voting method
Stacking or stacked generalization [25] is a method of constructing multi-level
The simplest method of combining multiple classifiers is voting. In the cases of
classifiers hierarchically. The first level consists of several single classifiers, and the
prediction, the outputs of the individual classifiers are pooled. Then, the class which
outputs of the first level classifiers are used to train the ‘stacked’ classifier, i.e., the
receives the largest number of votes is selected as the final classification decision. In
second level classifier. Therefore, the final decision depends on the output of the
general, the numerical output can be determined by different combination of prob-
stacked classifier. Unlike the above combined methods such as voting are per-
ability estimates.
formed by the ‘static’ combiner, the stacked classifier is a ‘trainable’ combiner. That
By combining two to four different individual classifiers, this study obtained
is, it estimates the classifier errors for a particular learning dataset and then corrects
eleven different ensemble classifiers. Ensembles of two different classifiers included
them.
MLP+CART, MLP+SVM, MLP+LR, CART+SVM, CART+LR, and SVM+LR; ensembles of
Since SVM performs better than many supervised learning techniques in many
three different classifiers included MLP+CART+SVM, MLP+CART+LR, CART+SVM+LR,
pattern recognition problems, the stacking based ensemble classifiers in this study
and MLP+SVM+LR. One ensemble of four different classifiers was used:
were based on a two-level scheme with three different individual classifiers in the
MLP+CART+SVM+LR.
first level and an SVM regression in the second level [53].

3.2.2. Bagging method 3.2.4. Cross-validation method

The bagging method uses bootstrap method to train several classifiers indepen-
dently and with different training sets [26]. Bootstrapping builds k replicate train-
ing datasets to construct k independent classifiers by randomly re-sampling and
replacing the original training dataset. That is, each training example may appear
repeatedly or not at all in any particular replicated training dataset of k. The k clas-
sifiers are then aggregated through an appropriate combination method, e.g., aver-
age of probabilities.
The k-fold cross-validation algorithm is often used to minimize bias associated
with random sampling of training and hold out data samples. Since Kohavi reported
that ten-fold validation testing yields the optimal computational time and reliable
variance [28], this work applied a stratified ten-fold cross-validation approach to
assess model performance. This method categorizes a fixed number of data samples
into ten subsets. In each of ten rounds of model building and validation, it chooses a
different data subset for testing and trains the model with the remaining nine data

Table 2
The HPC attributes in the datasets.

Parameter Unit Min. Ave. Max. Direction

Dataset 1 – Taiwan
Cement kg/m3 102.0 276.50 540.0 Input
Blast-furnace slag kg/m3 0.0 74.27 359.4
Fly ash kg/m3 0.0 62.81 260.0
Water kg/m3 121.8 182.98 247.0
Super-plasticizer kg/m3 0.0 6.42 32.2
Coarse aggregate kg/m3 708.0 964.83 1145.0
Fine aggregate kg/m3 594.0 770.49 992.6
Age of testing Days 1.0 44.06 365.0
Concrete compressive strength MPa 2.3 35.84 82.6 Output
Dataset 2 – Chile
Coarse aggregate kg/m3 1105.0 1135.73 1173.0 Input
Fine aggregate kg/m3 488.0 602.71 700.0
Cement kg/m3 408.0 518.31 659.0
Silica fume kg/m3 0.0 24.57 59.0
Water kg/m3 160.0 164.74 168.0
Plasticizer kg/m3 2.2 2.73 3.3
High-range water-reducing kg/m3 6.7 9.30 14.5
Entrapped air content % 1.3 1.82 2.5
Age of testing Days 1.0 18.81 56.0
Concrete compressive strength MPa 21.2 67.11 113.7 Output
Dataset 3 – Hong Kong
Fly ash replacement ratio % 0.0 25.00 55.0 Input
Silica fume replacement ratio % 0.0 1.88 5.0
Total cementitious material kg/m3 400.0 436.67 500.0
Fine aggregate kg/m3 536.0 639.38 724.0
Coarse aggregate kg/m3 1086.0 1125.00 1157.0
Water content lit/m3 150.0 171.98 205.0
High rate water reducing agent lit/m3 0.0 4.87 13.0
Age of samples Days 3.0 60.67 180.0
Concrete compressive strength MPa 7.8 56.63 107.8 Output
Dataset 4 – South Korea
Water to binder ratio % 30.0 37.60 45.0 Input
Water content kg/m3 160.0 170.00 180.0
Fine aggregate % 37.0 46.00 53.0
Fly ash % 0.0 10.10 20.0
Air entraining ratio kg/m3 0.04 0.05 0.08
Supper-plasticizer kg/m3 1.89 4.48 8.5
Concrete compressive strength MPa 38.0 52.68 74.0 Output
Dataset 5 – Iran
Cement kg/m3 320.0 357.4 400.0 Input
Coarse aggregate kg/m3 765.0 881.3 954.0
Fine aggregate kg/m3 796.0 884.7 1017.5
Water kg/m3 140.0 173.0 200.0
Metakaolin kg/m3 0.0 42.0 80.0
Age of testing Days 7.0 76.3 180.0
Concrete compressive strength MPa 19.0 49.3 82.5 Output
776 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780

subsets. The test subset is used to validate model accuracy (Fig. 1). Algorithm accu- materials were Portland cement equivalent to ASTM Type I, low
racy is then expressed as average accuracy acquired by the ten models in ten vali-
calcium fly ash equivalent to ASTM Class F, and a condensed silica
dation rounds.
fume commercially available in Hong Kong.
Dataset 4 – South Korea [57]: All materials used in this experi-
3.3. Performance evaluation methods
ment were produced in South Korea. Compressive strength was
The following performance measures were used to evaluate the accuracy of the 40–80 MPa. The W/B varies between 0.30 and 0.45, and the
proposed machine learning models. amount of fly ash used varies from 0% to 20% of the total binder,
and the content of super-plasticizer and air-entraining agent are
 Mean absolute error
0–2% and 0.010–0.013%, respectively, when expressed as a
1X n
MAE ¼ jy  y0 j ð15Þ Table 3
n i¼1
Default model parameter settings.
where y0 is the predicted value; y is the actual value; and n is the number of data
Model Parameter Setting
samples.
 Root mean squared error MLP Hidden layer 1
Learning rate 0.3
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Momentum 0.2
u n
u1 X Training/time 500
RMSE ¼ t ðy0  yÞ2 ð16Þ
n i¼1 Validation threshold 20
CART Initial count 0.0
 Mean absolute percentage error
Max depth 1
MinNum 2.0
n  
1X 0
y  y  minVarianceProp 0.001
MAPE ¼ ð17Þ

n i¼1 y  noPruning false
numFolds 3
To obtain a comprehensive performance measure, a synthesis index (SI) based seed 1
on three statistical measures, MAE, RMSE, and MAPE, was derived as
SVM C 1.0
n  
1X Pi  Pmin;i Kernel RBF
SI ¼ ð18Þ
n i¼1 Pmax;i  Pmin;i LR EliminateColinearAttributes True
Minimal False
where n = number of performance measures; and Pi = ith performance measure. The
Ridge 1.0E8
SI ranged from 0 to 1; an SI value close to 0 indicated a highly accurate predictive
model. Voting classifiers 2-4 weka.classifiers.Classifier
combinationRule Average of
Probabilities
4. Modeling experiments
Bagging bagSizePercent 100
numIterations 10
4.1. Data description and preparation
Stacking classifiers 3 weka.classifiers.Classifier
metaClassifier SMOreg
Data collected from reliable laboratory tests and published numFolds 10
studies were used as experimental data in evaluations of forecast-
ing performance of the proposed ML models. Supplementary
cement materials such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, metakaolin,
and silica fume are often added to HPC [2] to improve its material Table 4
properties (Fig. 2). Table 1 lists the five multi-nation datasets with Prediction performances of individual models.

various additional cementing materials. Dataset ML technique MAE (MPa) RMSE (MPa) MAPE (%) SI
Dataset 1 – Taiwan: In this experimental dataset originally col- Dataset 1 – Taiwan
lected by Yeh [31,54], the final set of 1133 samples of ordinary MLP 6.19 7.95 20.84 0.54
Portland cement containing various additives and cured under nor- CART 5.86 7.84 20.66 0.50
mal conditions was evaluated from numerous university research SVM 3.75 5.59 12.03 0.00
LR 7.87 10.11 29.89 1.00
labs. All tests were performed on 15-cm cylindrical specimens of
concrete prepared using standard procedures. Dataset 2 – Chile
MLP 4.00 5.40 6.81 0.00
Dataset 2 – Chile [55]: Rapid hardening Portland blast-furnace
CART 4.29 5.72 7.35 0.04
slag cement, silica fume, coarse and fine crushed siliceous aggre- SVM 8.02 10.32 16.95 0.61
gates, and plasticizer and high-range water reducing chemical LR 11.38 13.49 21.87 1.00
admixtures were used. Concrete trial mixtures were proportioned Dataset 3 – Hong Kong
using the coarse aggregate dosages recommended by ACI 211.4R- MLP 4.28 5.81 10.51 0.00
93. All samples were stored in a standard curing room CART 7.29 9.28 16.31 0.56
SVM 5.34 6.62 13.26 0.19
(T = 20 ± 3 °C and relative humidity [RH] > 90%) until testing at
LR 9.56 11.04 23.91 1.00
varying age. Compressive strength tests were performed on two Dataset 4 – South Korea
150  300 mm cylindrical samples according to ASTM C 39 on days
MLP 1.43 1.90 11.34 0.47
1, 3, 7, 28, and 56. CART 1.86 2.58 3.22 0.68
Dataset 3 – Hong Kong [56]: Concrete mixes were prepared at SVM 1.31 1.73 2.95 0.00
different ratios of water to cementitious materials, with low and LR 1.72 2.20 3.41 0.45
high volumes of fly ash, and with or without addition of small Dataset 5 – Iran
amounts of silica fume. The 144 different samples consisted of MLP 6.08 7.87 14.16 0.27
24 different mixes cured for 3, 7, 28, 56, or 180 days. In each mix CART 5.42 7.11 12.55 0.00
SVM 7.73 10.10 18.83 1.00
series, the percentage of cement replacement by fly ash (on direct
LR 6.47 7.86 15.68 0.40
weight to weight basis) varied from 0% to 55%. Some mixes con-
tained a further 5% silica fume replacement. The cementitious Highlighted in bold denotes the best model and performance measure.
 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780 777

Table 5
Prediction performances of ensemble models.

Ensemble method Model MAE (MPa) RMSE (MPa) MAPE(%) SI

Dataset 1 – Taiwan
Voting
MLP+CART 5.13 6.67 17.85 0.05
MLP+SVM 8.35 10.65 30.20 0.17
MLP+LR 6.13 7.87 22.29 0.09
CART+SVM 3.97 5.51 14.24 0.02
CART+LR 5.70 7.40 21.50 0.08
SVM+LR 5.27 7.05 19.88 0.06
MLP+CART+SVM 12.08 15.45 35.44 0.27
MLP+CART+LR 36.32 38.41 111.04 1.00
CART+SVM+LR 4.66 6.18 17.54 0.04
MLP+SVM+LR 6.51 8.47 23.90 0.10
MLP+CART+SVM+LR 28.84 31.71 80.89 0.76
Bagging
MLP 15.66 19.70 53.40 0.41
CART 4.26 5.71 15.02 0.02
SVM 4.01 5.75 14.09 0.02
LR 7.88 10.13 29.96 0.16
Stacking
MLP+CART+SVM 7.25 9.48 25.92 0.13
MLP+CART+LR 7.03 9.02 24.59 0.12
CART+SVM+LR 3.52 5.08 11.97 0.00
MLP+SVM+LR 5.92 7.66 20.64 0.08
Dataset 2 – Chile
Voting
MLP+CART 18.83 22.06 25.30 0.26
MLP+SVM 10.74 12.79 19.71 0.14
MLP+LR 54.97 70.13 89.40 1.00
CART+SVM 4.91 6.39 9.80 0.03
CART+LR 5.90 7.52 11.47 0.05
SVM+LR 8.51 10.87 17.98 0.11
MLP+CART+SVM 17.54 20.79 25.67 0.25
MLP+CART+LR 48.26 58.00 74.39 0.83
CART+SVM+LR 5.98 7.76 12.50 0.05
MLP+SVM+LR 7.84 9.65 15.27 0.08
MLP+CART+SVM+LR 37.98 45.95 56.16 0.63
Bagging
MLP 20.91 24.31 38.68 0.34
CART 3.82 5.13 6.50 0.00
SVM 9.66 12.06 19.82 0.13
LR 11.49 13.52 21.79 0.15
Stacking
MLP+CART+SVM 5.97 7.49 9.94 0.04
MLP+CART+LR 5.86 7.30 9.71 0.04
CART+SVM+LR 4.86 6.30 8.30 0.02
MLP+SVM+LR 5.66 7.15 9.37 0.03
Dataset 3 – Hong Kong
Voting
MLP+CART 19.22 22.46 31.77 0.08
MLP+SVM 10.75 12.87 28.26 0.04
MLP+LR 161.77 166.78 403.48 1.00
CART+SVM 4.89 6.26 11.35 0.00
CART+LR 5.78 7.12 14.74 0.01
SVM+LR 6.14 7.51 16.19 0.01
MLP+CART+SVM 18.04 21.53 34.79 0.08
MLP+CART+LR 95.62 99.98 251.60 0.59
CART+SVM+LR 4.81 6.09 12.54 0.00
MLP+SVM+LR 7.10 8.61 17.86 0.02
MLP+CART+SVM+LR 70.32 74.84 193.99 0.44
Bagging
MLP 21.33 26.03 67.16 0.12
CART 5.63 6.98 14.97 0.01
SVM 6.13 7.72 15.93 0.01
LR 9.64 11.10 24.14 0.03
Stacking
MLP+CART+SVM 6.40 8.09 15.74 0.01
MLP+CART+LR 5.57 7.38 14.22 0.01
CART+SVM+LR 5.22 7.01 12.18 0.00
MLP+SVM+LR 4.70 6.02 11.75 0.00

(continued on next page)

778 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780

Table 5 (continued)

Ensemble method Model MAE (MPa) RMSE (MPa) MAPE(%) SI

Dataset 4 – South Korea
Voting
MLP+CART 4.78 6.18 8.42 0.09
MLP+SVM 4.44 4.98 8.61 0.08
MLP+LR 45.53 49.72 79.73 1.00
CART+SVM 1.29 1.79 2.50 0.01
CART+LR 1.50 2.05 2.89 0.01
SVM+LR 1.26 1.65 2.44 0.01
MLP+CART+SVM 5.46 6.66 9.93 0.10
MLP+CART+LR 26.15 30.72 49.58 0.59
CART+SVM+LR 1.24 1.70 2.39 0.01
MLP+SVM+LR 1.35 1.78 2.64 0.01
MLP+CART+SVM+LR 17.79 21.51 33.72 0.40
Bagging
MLP 5.74 7.34 11.34 0.11
CART 1.68 2.37 3.22 0.02
SVM 1.52 2.03 2.95 0.01
LR 1.73 2.17 3.41 0.01
Stacking
MLP+CART+SVM 2.43 3.63 4.61 0.04
MLP+CART+LR 1.64 2.34 3.28 0.01
CART+SVM+LR 1.09 1.51 2.11 0.00
MLP+SVM+LR 1.13 1.59 2.20 0.01

Dataset 5 – Iran
Voting
MLP+CART 4.71 6.22 11.17 0.14
MLP+SVM 5.72 7.39 13.61 0.40
MLP+LR 4.97 6.39 11.85 0.20
CART+SVM 5.12 7.06 12.61 0.29
CART+LR 4.26 5.90 10.56 0.06
SVM+LR 6.57 8.15 16.21 0.62
MLP+CART+SVM 4.74 6.31 11.38 0.16
MLP+CART+LR 4.06 5.61 9.87 0.00
CART+SVM+LR 4.83 6.58 12.13 0.21
MLP+SVM+LR 5.15 6.60 12.59 0.26
MLP+CART+SVM+LR 4.47 6.07 10.99 0.11
Bagging
MLP 4.38 5.69 10.29 0.05
CART 4.25 5.78 10.17 0.04
SVM 7.93 10.47 19.13 1.00
LR 6.22 7.75 15.00 0.52
Stacking
MLP+CART+SVM 5.47 6.99 12.42 0.31
MLP+CART+LR 5.21 6.53 12.21 0.25
CART+SVM+LR 5.54 7.17 12.64 0.33
MLP+SVM+LR 6.21 7.83 14.62 0.51

Highlighted in bold denotes the best model and performance measure.

Stacking CART+SVM+LR
Bagging SVM
Dataset 1
Voting CART+SVM
SVM

Stacking CART+SVM+LR
Bagging CART
Dataset 2 Voting CART+SVM
Concrete dataset

MLP

Stacking MLP+SVM+LR
Bagging CART
Dataset 3 Voting CART+SVM+LR
MLP

Stacking CART+SVM+LR
Bagging SVM
Dataset 4 Voting CART+SVM+LR
SVM

Stacking MLP+CART+LR
Bagging CART
Dataset 5 Voting MLP+CART+LR
CART MPa

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00
Average mean absolute error (MAE)

Fig. 3. Average MAEs of prediction models.

 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780
Table 6
Comparison of best individual and ensemble models.
Dataset Predictive technique
Dataset 1 (Taiwan) SVM
CART+SVM+LR (stacking)
Dataset 2 (Chile) MLP
CART (bagging)
Dataset 3 (Hong Kong) MLP
MLP+SVM+LR (stacking)
Dataset 4 (South Korea) SVM
CART+SVM+LR (stacking)
Dataset 5 (Iran) CART
MLP+CART+LR (voting)
percentage of dry solids to the binder content. Portland cement
prepared according to the definition for ASTM type I was used.
The coarse aggregate used was crushed granite (specific gravity,
2.7; fineness modulus, 7.2; maximum particle size, 19 mm). The
fine aggregate was quartz sand (specific gravity, 2.61; fineness
modulus, 2.94).
Dataset 5 – Iran [58]: Metakaolin (MK) is a very active natural
pozzolan that can produce concrete with high early strength.
Recently, the highly pozzolonic properties of MK have been studied
intensively. Incorporating MK in concrete significantly increased
resistance to chloride penetration. ASTM C150 type-I Portland
cement (PC) was used for all of the concrete mixtures. Coarse
and fine aggregates were crushed calcareous stone (maximum size,
19 mm) and natural sand, respectively. Potable water was used for
casting and curing of all concrete specimens. The MK was used as
the supplementary cementitious material. The percentages of MK
used to replace PC in this experiment were 0%, 5%, 10%, 12.5%,
15%, and 20% by mass of concrete added to the clinker. Data for
100 samples of concrete containing MK were obtained.
The multi-nation datasets used in this study have been con-
firmed in part or in whole in many studies of predictive models
(Table 1). Based on four predictive techniques used as baseline
models, this study used five experimental datasets to investigate
the performance of the ensemble models. Table 2 summarizes
the statistical parameters in each of the databases, which were
obtained from various university research laboratories, including
descriptive data for various additives and various curing times
under normal conditions. The response/target was CCS, and the
predictor variables were the remaining attributes.
4.2. Model construction
The four different ML techniques used as single and combined
classifiers in the prediction models were multilayer perceptron
(MLP) neural network, classification and regression tree (CART),
SVM, and linear regression (LR). Table 3 lists the parameters used
to develop these individual and ensemble models. The WEKA soft-
ware was used to implement the models.
5. Results and discussion
Tables 4 and 5 shows the prediction performances of single and
ensemble learning based models, respectively over the multi-
nation datasets. Table 4 shows the cross-fold modeling perfor-
mance. For single learning based models, SVM performs the best
over two datasets (i.e., Datasets 1-Taiwan and 4-South Korea)
and MLP has the lowest error rates over two datasets (i.e., Datasets
2-Chile and 3-Hong Kong). Notably, the best single ML model is
CART in Dataset 5-Iran over the synthesis index.
Overall, the ensemble models achieved good outcomes in terms
of overall performance measures. For example, of the models based
on ensemble learning by voting approach, CART+SVM performed
779
MAE (MPa) RMSE (MPa) MAPE (%)
3.75 5.59 12.03
3.52 5.08 11.97
4.00 5.40 6.81
3.82 5.13 6.50
4.28 5.81 10.51
4.70 6.02 11.75
1.31 1.73 2.95
1.09 1.51 2.11
5.42 7.11 12.55
4.06 5.61 9.87
best in Datasets 1–4 (SI values of 0.02, 0.03, 0.00 and 0.01, respec-
tively). For the bagging approach, SVM or CART ensemble had the
lowest error rates over Datasets 1–5 (SI values of 0.02, 0.00, 0.01,
0.01 and 0.04, respectively). For the stacking approach, the first
level technique based on CART+SVM+LR often had the best perfor-
mance over the multi-nation datasets.
Specifically, the ensemble learning based models that per-
formed the best, in terms of SI values, over the five datasets were
stacking-based CART+SVM+LR for Datasets 1 and 4, bagging-based
CART for Dataset 2, stacking-based MLP+SVM+LR for Dataset 3, and
voting-based MLP+CART+LR for Dataset 5. Fig. 3 shows the average
MAEs for the best prediction models based on single, voting, bag-
ging, and stacking learning. For example, the best learning models
were voting based MLP+CART+LR (5.21 MPa in Dataset 5), stacking
based CART+SVM+LR (3.52 and 1.09 MPa in Datasets 1 and 4,
respectively), single MLP (4.28 MPa in Dataset 3), and bagging
CART (3.82 MPa in Dataset 2).
Table 6 further compares the best single and ensemble learning
based models over the five datasets based on k-cross validation
algorithm. The comparative results showed that the best ensemble
learning based models outperformed the single learning based
models over four datasets.
The comparison results indicated that SVM and MLP can be con-
sidered the two best individual learning based models and that the
ensemble techniques generally perform better than the best indi-
vidual models for predicting HPC compressive strength if chosen
carefully. Specifically, the voting-based MLP+CART+LR, bagging-
based CART, and stacking-based MLP/CART+SVM+LR were the best
individual models for constructing ensemble learning based
models.
Moreover, the analytical results indicated that most ML models
achieved good performance and obtained lower error values
compared to those of previous works, such as multi-gene genetic
programming approach (MAE = 5.480 MPa) in Dataset 1 [59], com-
bination of hyperbolic and exponential equation (MAE = 5.000 MPa)
in Dataset 2 [55] and weighted genetic programming approach
(RMSE = 2.180 MPa) in Dataset 4 [60].
6. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive
comparison of various learning techniques used individually and
in combination for performing simulations of concrete compres-
sive strength based on multi-nation datasets with diverse additive
materials. Four individual ML techniques (MLP, SVM, CART, and LR)
were used to construct the prediction models as benchmark base-
lines. The ensemble learning based models used voting, bagging,
and stacking approaches to combine multiple single learning based
models.
The experimental results showed that the best individual learn-
ing techniques were SVM and MLP except for Dataset 5. On aver-
age, the stacking based ensemble model composed of MLP/CART,
780 J.-S. Chou et al. / Construction and Building Materials 73 (2014) 771–780
SVM, and LR as the first level models and SVM as the second level
model performed best in terms of MAE, RMSE, and MAPE (Datasets
1, 3, and 4).
Generally, ensemble learning techniques outperformed individ-
ual learning techniques in predicting HPC compressive strength.
However, individual ML based models should be selected carefully
to obtain the best ensemble model. Specifically, the best individual
ML model (i.e., MLP) sometimes provided lower error rates com-
pared to ensemble learning based models (Dataset 3).
The contribution of this paper to the domain knowledge is to
propose and validate the machine learning, voting, bagging, and
stacking techniques for simulating concrete compressive strength.
To maximize ease of use and modeling efficiency, this work used
default settings in the individual and ensemble models in WEKA.
Therefore, further studies are needed to explore how the parame-
ters in these models can be optimized automatically.
References
[1] Sobhani J, Najimi M, Pourkhorshidi AR, Parhizkar T. Prediction of the
compressive strength of no-slump concrete: a comparative study of
regression, neural network and ANFIS models. Constr Build Mater
2010;24(5):709–18.
[2] Kosmatka SH, Wilson ML. Design and control of concrete mixtures, EB001.
fifteenth ed. Skokie (IL, USA): Portland Cement Association; 2011.
[3] Bharatkumar BH, Narayanan R, Raghuprasad BK, Ramachandramurthy DS. Mix
proportioning of high performance concrete. Cement Concr Compos
2001;23(1):71–80.
[4] Papadakis VG, Tsimas S. Supplementary cementing materials in concrete: Part
I: Efficiency and design. Cem Concr Res 2002;32(10):1525–32.
[5] Prasad BKR, Eskandari H, Reddy BVV. Prediction of compressive strength of SCC
and HPC with high volume fly ash using ANN. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(1):
117–28.
[6] Bhanja S, Sengupta B. Investigations on the compressive strength of silica fume
concrete using statistical methods. Cem Concr Res 2002;32(9):1391–4.
[7] Atici U. Prediction of the strength of mineral-addition concrete using
regression analysis. In: Concrete Research. Thomas Telford Ltd.; 2010. p.
585–92.
[8] Zain MFM, Abd SM. Multiple regression model for compressive strength
prediction of high performance concrete. J Appl Sci 2009;9(1):155–60.
[9] Yeh IC, Lien L-C. Knowledge discovery of concrete material using Genetic
Operation Trees. Expert Syst Appl 2009;36(3, Part 2):5807–12.
[10] Topçu IB,_ Sarıdemir M. Prediction of compressive strength of concrete
containing fly ash using artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. Comput
Mater Sci 2008;41(3):305–11.
[11] Reich Y. Machine learning techniques for civil engineering problems. Comput
Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 1997;12(4):295–310.
[12] Boukhatem B, Kenai S, Tagnit-Hamou A, Ghrici M. Application of new
information technology on concrete: an overview. J Civil Eng Manage 2011;
17(2):248–58.
[13] Tiryaki S, Aydın A. An artificial neural network model for predicting
compression strength of heat treated woods and comparison with a multiple
linear regression model. Constr Build Mater 2014;62(0):102–8.
[14] Chen B-T, Chang T-P, Shih J-Y, Wang J-J. Estimation of exposed temperature for
fire-damaged concrete using support vector machine. Comput Mater Sci
2009;44(3):913–20.
[15] Majid A, Khan A, Javed G, Mirza AM. Lattice constant prediction of cubic and
monoclinic perovskites using neural networks and support vector regression.
Comput Mater Sci 2010;50(2):363–72.
[16] Cheng M-Y, Chou J-S, Roy AFV, Wu Y-W. High-performance concrete
compressive strength prediction using time-weighted evolutionary fuzzy
support vector machines inference model. Automat Constr 2012;28(0):
106–15.
[17] Peng C-H, Yeh IC, Lien L-C. Building strength models for high-performance
concrete at different ages using genetic operation trees, nonlinear regression,
and neural networks. Eng Comput 2010;26(1):61–73.
[18] Gupta S. Support vector machines based modelling of concrete strength. In:
Proceedings of world academy of science: engineering & technology, vol. 36;
2007
[19] Dantas ATA, Batista Leite M, de Jesus Nagahama K. Prediction of compressive
strength of concrete containing construction and demolition waste using
artificial neural networks. Constr Build Mater 2013;38:717–22.
[20] Chou J-S, Chiu C, Farfoura M, Al-Taharwa I. Optimizing the prediction accuracy
of concrete compressive strength based on a comparison of data-mining
techniques. J Comput Civil Eng 2011;25(3):242–53.
[21] Yan K, Shi C. Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high strength
concrete by support vector machine. Constr Build Mater 2010;24(8):1479–85.
[22] Uysal M, Tanyildizi H. Predicting the core compressive strength of self-
compacting concrete (SCC) mixtures with mineral additives using artificial
neural network. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(11):4105–11.
[23] Chou J-S, Tsai C-F. Concrete compressive strength analysis using a combined
classification and regression technique. Automat Constr 2012;24(0):52–60.
[24] Singh KP, Gupta S, Rai P. Identifying pollution sources and predicting urban air
quality using ensemble learning methods. Atmos Environ 2013;80:426–37.
[25] Wolpert DH. Stacked generalization. Neural Networks 1992;5(2):241–59.
[26] Breiman L. Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 1996;24(2):123–40.
[27] Dietterich T. Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: Multiple classifier
systems. Berlin (Heidelberg): Springer; 2000. p. 1–15.
[28] Kohavi R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation
and model selection. In: International joint conference on artificial
intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann; 1995. p. 1137–43.
[29] Altun F, Kisßi Ö, Aydin K. Predicting the compressive strength of steel fiber
added lightweight concrete using neural network. Comput Mater Sci
2008;42(2):259–65.
[30] Yeh IC. Analysis of strength of concrete using design of experiments and neural
networks. J Mater Civ Eng 2006;18(4):597–604.
[31] Yeh IC. Modeling of strength of high-performance concrete using artificial
neural networks. Cem Concr Res 1998;28(12):1797–808.
[32] Ni H-G, Wang J-Z. Prediction of compressive strength of concrete by neural
networks. Cem Concr Res 2000;30(8):1245–50.
[33] Parichatprecha R, Nimityongskul P. Analysis of durability of high performance
concrete using artificial neural networks. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(2):
910–7.
_ Sarıdemir M. Prediction of properties of waste AAC aggregate concrete
[34] Topçu IB,
using artificial neural network. Comput Mater Sci 2007;41(1): 117–25.
[35] Lee JJ, Kim D, Chang SK, Nocete CFM. An improved application technique of the
adaptive probabilistic neural network for predicting concrete strength.
Comput Mater Sci 2009;44(3):988–98.
[36] Mousavi SM, Aminian P, Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Bolandi H. A new predictive
model for compressive strength of HPC using gene expression programming.
Adv Eng Softw 2012;45(1):105–14.
[37] Adeodato PJL, Arnaud AL, Vasconcelos GC, Cunha RCLV, Monteiro DSMP. MLP
ensembles improve long term prediction accuracy over single networks. Int J
Forecast 2011;27(3):661–71.
[38] Erdal HI, Karakurt O, Namli E. High performance concrete compressive
strength forecasting using ensemble models based on discrete wavelet
transform. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2013(0).
[39] Erdal HI, Karakurt O. Advancing monthly streamflow prediction accuracy of
CART models using ensemble learning paradigms. J Hydrol 2013;477:119–28.
[40] Wu X, Kumar V, Ross Quinlan J, Ghosh J, Yang Q, Motoda H, et al. Top 10
algorithms in data mining. Knowl Inf Syst 2008;14(1):1–37.
[41] Vapnik VN. The nature of statistical learning theory. New York: Springer-
Verlag; 1995.
[42] Smola A, Schölkopf B. A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput
2004;14(3):199–222.
[43] Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C. Classification and regression
trees. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1984.
[44] Loh W-Y. Classification and regression trees. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev Data
Mining Knowl Discov 2011;1(1):14–23.
[45] de Oña J, de Oña R, Calvo FJ. A classification tree approach to identify key
factors of transit service quality. Expert Syst Appl 2012;39(12):11164–71.
[46] Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W. Applied Linear Statistical
Models. Fourth ed: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 1996.
[47] Liang H, Song W. Improved estimation in multiple linear regression models
with measurement error and general constraint. J. Multivar. Anal. 2009;
100(4):726–41.
[48] Chen L. A multiple linear regression prediction of concrete compressive
strength based on physical properties of electric arc furnace oxidizing slag. Int.
J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2010;7(2):153–8.
[49] Yan X, Su XG. Linear regression analysis: theory and computing. Singapore:
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.; 2009.
[50] Frosyniotis D, Stafylopatis A, Likas A. A divide-and-conquer method for multi-
net classifiers. Pattern Anal Appl 2003;6(1):32–40.
[51] Ghosh J. Multiclassifier systems: back to the future. In: Roli F, Kittler J, editors.
Multiple classifier systems. Berlin (Heidelberg): Springer; 2002. p. 1–15.
[52] Polikar R. Ensemble based systems in decision making. IEEE Circuits Syst Mag
2006;6(3):21–45.
[53] Lee S-W, Byun H. A survey on pattern recognition applications of support
vector machines. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 2003;17(03):459–86.
[54] Yeh IC. Modeling slump of concrete with fly ash and superplasticizer. Comput
Concr 2008;5(6):559–72.
[55] Videla C, Gaedicke C. Modeling Portland blast-furnace slag cement high-
performance concrete. ACI Mater J 2004;101(5):365–75.
[56] Lam L, Wong YL, Poon CS. Effect of fly ash and silica fume on compressive and
fracture behaviors of concrete. Cem Concr Res 1998;28(2):271–83.
[57] Lim C-H, Yoon Y-S, Kim J-H. Genetic algorithm in mix proportioning of high-
performance concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(3):409–20.
[58] Safarzadegan GS, Bahrami Jovein H, Ramezanianpour AA. Hybrid support
vector regression – particle swarm optimization for prediction of compressive
strength and RCPT of concretes containing metakaolin. Constr Build Mater
2012;34(0):321–9.
[59] Gandomi A, Alavi A. A new multi-gene genetic programming approach to
nonlinear system modeling. Part I: Materials and structural engineering
problems. Neural Comput Appl 2012;21(1):171–87.
[60] Tsai H-C, Lin Y-H. Predicting high-strength concrete parameters using
weighted genetic programming. Eng Comput 2011;27(4):347–55.