Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 235–240

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Modeling of compressive strength and UPV of high-volume

mineral-admixtured concrete using rule-based M5 rule
and tree model M5P classifiers
Yasßar Ayaz a,⇑, Adnan Fatih Kocamaz b, Mehmet Burhan Karakoç a
a _
Department of Civil Engineering, Inönü University, Malatya, Turkey
b _
Department of Computer Engineering, Inönü University, Malatya, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s

 M5 rule is used to predict the compressive strength and UPV of concrete.

 Tree model M5P is used to predict the compressive strength and UPV of concrete.
 The proposed model is suitable for predicting the compressive strength and UPV values.

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

Article history: Compressive strength and UPV parameters are the methods that are used to determine high-volume
Received 6 March 2015 mineral admixture concrete quality. But experiments for all levels of these parameters are expensive,
Received in revised form 11 June 2015 difficult and time consuming. For determination of output values, classifiers with model extraction
Accepted 12 June 2015
features can be used. In this study, classifiers, with the rule-based M5 rule and tree model M5P in the area
Available online 10 July 2015
of data mining are used to predict the compressive strength and UPV of concrete mixtures after 3, 7, 28
and 120 days of curing. The M5 rule and tree model M5P are tested using the available test data of 40
Keywords:
different concrete mix-designs gathered from literature [1]. The input of the model is a variable data
Data mining
M5 rule
set corresponding to concrete mixture proportions. The findings of this study indicated that the M5 rule
Tree model M5P and tree model M5P models are sufficient tools for estimating the compressive strength and UPV of con-
Concrete crete. 97% and 87% success is obtained in predicting compressive strength and UPV results, respectively.
Compressive strength Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
UPV

1. Introduction experimental behavior, thus requiring a cost efficient computa-

Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) is one of nondestructive method
to evaluate compressive strength of concrete. The UPV has been
used to investigate the mechanical properties of concrete [1–6].
Civil engineers use various modeling approaches to predict the
behavior of structures and their components. The traditional mod-
eling approaches are based on empirical relationships derived
using experimental data. For predictions of the compressive
strength and shear strength of beams and column numbers of
models have been proposed depending on different experimental
conditions and assumptions. The data specific nature of these
models is suggested by several studies. As the design of a structure
or a structural component may require an iterative process in
which the assumed model behavior converges with the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ya.malatya@gmail.com, yasar.ayaz@inonu.edu.tr (Y. Ayaz).
tional technique [7].
Sbartai et al. [8] used response surface method (RSM) and arti-
ficial neural networks (ANNs) methods to predict concrete proper-
ties. Data were collected from ground penetrating radar (GPR)
electrical resistivity and ultrasonic pulse velocity. Dantas et al.
[9] developed ANNs model for predicting the compressive strength
of concrete containing Construction and Demolition Waste. Atıcı
[10] used multiple regression analysis and an artificial neural net-
work for estimating compressive strength of mineral-admixtured
concrete using data collected from non-destructive testing
rebound number and ultrasonic pulse velocity. Alexandridis et al.
[11] used a neural network for predicting the compressive strength
of cement-based materials using the information hidden in weak
electrical signals measured in specimens that are under mechani-
cal stress.
Data mining methods were improved to find valuable and
meaningful results and conclusions from lots of meaningless data.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.029
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
236 Y. Ayaz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 235–240

The decision tree method is one of the data mining methods and
the tree structures are one of the supervised learning methods.
Trees that are used for numeric prediction are just like ordinary
decision trees called a regression tree, except that at each leaf they
store either a class value that represents the average value of
instances that reach the leaf [12].
algorithm is used for both classifying and solution of regression problems. The
CART algorithm can use both numerical and nominal data types. The CART benefits
from Gini index as branch criteria [23].
To build a M5 tree, dividing criteria must be defined. Dividing the branches
criteria is based on standard deviation of the attribute values. The attribute that
reduces expected error is chosen as the root of the tree. The formula of standard
deviation reduction (SDR) is calculated as [20]

The M5P tree, or M5 rule, is a predictive technique that has X jT i j

become increasingly noticed since Quinlan introduced it in 1992. SDR ¼ sdðTÞ   sdðT i Þ ð1Þ
i
jTj
Model trees are ordinary decision trees with linear regression
models at the leaves that predict the value of observations that
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
reach the leaf. The nodes of the tree represent variables and the u
u 1 X n
sdðTÞ ¼ t ðT i  TÞ  2 ð2Þ
branches represent split values. The fact that the tree structure n  1 i¼1
divides the sample space into regions and a linear regression
model is found for each makes the tree somewhat interpretable.
Model tree induction algorithms derive from the divide-and- 1 X
n
T ¼ Ti ð3Þ
conquer decision tree methodology. Unlike classification trees, n i¼1

which choose the attribute and its splitting value for each node
to maximize the information gain, model trees minimize the
intra-subset variation in the class values down each branch. In
other words, for each node a model tree chooses an attribute and
its splitting value to maximize the expected error reduction
(standard deviation reduction) [13].
Data mining techniques have been mostly used in many engi-
neering applications including the behavior of concrete materials
and structures in recent years [14–18]. Usability of prominent
modeling techniques such as M5 rule and tree model M5P is not
known. The aim of this paper is to construct models, M5 rule and
tree model M5P, to evaluate the effect of fly ash (FA) and blast fur-
nace slag (BFS) on compressive strength and the UPV of concrete.
For this purpose, WEKA workbench was used to evaluate the data.
WEKA contains lots of data mining techniques and machine learn-
ing algorithms. It is developed for researchers who want to try out
existing methods on new datasets easily. It gives comprehensive
support for experimental data mining, containing preparing input
data, evaluating statistically learning schemes, and showing out-
come of learning [12]. Using WEKA, models were constructed,
trained and tested using the available test data of 40 different con-
crete mix-designs gathered from literature [1] (see Table 1). In this
paper, M5 rule and tree model M5P were utilized in order to pre-
dict compressive strength and UPV of concretes containing FA
and BFS without performing any experiments. In training of the
models, cement content, BFS content, FA content and curing period
were entered as input, while compressive strength and UPV values
were used as outputs. 97% success is achieved in prediction of com-
pressive strength.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Data mining algorithm
There are a lot of learning techniques in literature such as neural network,
instance based learning, regression tree, standard regression, which are used to pre-
dict numeric values, but the techniques which have the best predicting perfor-
mance is not determined. Their performances change according to application
area. In this study, different learning techniques are used to predict our UPV and
compressive strength values of the concrete. The best performance is obtained by
using the rule-based M5 rule and tree model M5P.
where
T: set of attributes values
Ti: attribute value that taken from divided node according to selected attribute
 average value of the sets of T attribute
T:
sd(T): standard deviation of T.
The tree grooving process, except CART’s attribute choosing, is taken from CART
[21]. After building the tree, pruning the tree must be done to increase classification
performance. Pruning procedure deletes the branches which result error in the
learning data. Soon as the tree building procedure starts, the CART tree enlarges
by dividing continuously without any stopping rule. When the building ends,
pruning starts from the leafs to root. After every pruning, most successful tree is
determined [24].
At M5 algorithm, for the pruning process first of all, difference between real
class value and predicted value is averaged at every training example reach the
node. This averaged value is multiplied by this coefficient [20]
nþv
ð4Þ
nv
where
n: number of training examples at the node
v: number of parameter that represent class value at the node.
2.1.2. M5 rule
M5 rule is a rule based learning technique and can predict the nominal and
numeric values. M5 rule sets is generated from model trees. Model trees are enough
to predict numeric and nominal values. Model trees are used in the M5 rule. The
rule algorithm works by repeating model tree building and trying to select best rule
at every cycle.
M5 rule generates the rules from M5 tree based on the partial and regression
tree (PART) algorithm that presented by Frank and Witten [25] in 1998. To build
a M5 rule following steps are applied:
(1) A M5 tree learner is applied for whole training data.
(2) Such as M5P, the tree is pruned.
(3) The best leaf is turned into rule.
(4) Previous procedure continues until the whole instances are included in the
rules. An instance can be included by different rules at the same time.
(5) In contrast to PART, which employs the same strategy for categorical pre-
diction, m5P Rules build full trees instead of partially explored trees [26].
2.2. Data collection

2.1.1. M5P Tree
First of all, Quinlan [19] presented concept of ‘‘model tree’’ that he named it M5,
as a new method for dealing with learning problems in 1992. Model trees are
designed as a combination of decision tree and linear regression functions at the
leaves. Young and Witten [20] has developed M5P which perform better on dataset
and they make some chances on the original M5 algorithm to reduce the tree size.
Now let’s describe how to build a M5 tree. Firstly, to build a model tree,
decision-tree algorithm is used. Secondly, a tree pruning way, which was presented
by Breiman [21] and Quinlan [22] , is applied with some differences. They suggested
a new decision tree algorithm CART (Classifying and Regression Tree). The CART
The main objective of this study is developing models to predict the compres-
sive strength and UPV values of concrete. For this aim, at first it is needed to prepare
data and construct databases for training and testing the models.
Admixtures, such as fly ash (FA) and blast furnace slag (BFS), are used as
replacements for cement for improving the mechanical properties, decreasing the
rate of hydration, decreasing the alkali aggregate reactivity and decreasing the per-
meability of concrete. FA and BFS are the most common concrete ingredients due to
their pozzolanic properties [1]. Zero percent, 50%, 60% and 70% FA or BFS were used
in replacement of cement. In addition, 25% FA + 25% BFS, 30% FA + 30% BFS and 35%
FA + 35% BFS also replaced cement. The samples were tested at 3, 7, 28 and 120 days
for UPV and compressive strength. Mix proportions are given in Table 1.
 Y. Ayaz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 235–240 237

2.3. Model induction from experimental data

The compressive strength and UPV values of 40 concrete mixes are given in
Table 1. These values were obtained from WEKA workbench containing data mining
methods. In these tests, all data was entered numerically and all outputs were also
obtained numerically. So, the data was analyzed with the methods giving regression
results in WEKA tools. In these analyses, M5 rule and tree model M5P, which gives
best results for both compressive strength and UPV outputs, is used obtaining max-
imum success.
The data mining method is designed to predict only one output value although
there are two outputs shown in Table 1. So, compressive strength and UPV values
were divided into two data parts. Both data parts use same input attributes and
input values. These values are given in Table 1.
In the analysis when the cross validation value is defined as 15 folds it can be
observed that the correlation coefficient rate increases. The aim of data mining is
to find outputs on the independent input values and compare with experimental
outputs after the learning process is completed [12].
The M5 rule and tree model M5P is used to generate the models on the input
data and predict the compressive strength and UPV of concrete used in the study. Fig. 1. Comparison of experimental data with training results obtained from
The input data is divided into several parts, with each part in turn used to test a models.
model fitted to the remaining parts. For this study, a fifteen fold cross-validation
was used. The correlation coefficient and mean absolute error were used to judge
the performance of models in predicting the compressive strength and UPV with
different data used in present study.
The success and performance of methods is measured with correlation coeffi-
cient. The correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of the strength of the
straight-line or linear relationship between two variables. The correlation coeffi-
cient takes on values ranging between +1 and 1 [27].
One of the performance criteria in the analyses is mean absolute error. The
mean absolute error is one of the performance criteria in data mining. A model’s
ability to predict is good when mean absolute error approaches to zero [12].
40 concrete mixes collected from the literature [1] were evaluated. The input
variables were: the content of cement, BFS and FA, and curing period. The two out-
put variables were the compressive strength and UPV values. Therefore, input and
output variables, which are listed Table 1, were chosen for this study.

3. Application and results

3.1. M5 rules model results for compressive strength values
The M5 rules model is one of the rules-based classification
methods. For this model, 40 instances shown in Table 1 were
tested. Different cross-validation values were tested to find the
best cross-validation value. For this application 15-fold cross-
validation which gave the best results was used. A 0.97 correlation
coefficient and a 2.71 mean absolute error was obtained.
A correlation coefficient of 0.97 means that a prediction is 97%
successful. Rule-based classifier’ results may be expressed with
linear equations. In this study two equations were obtained
depending on number of days

day 6 17:5 : 1:188  day þ 0:0844  C kg  0:0347  FAkg  2:4882
Comp: str: ¼
day > 17:5 : 0:1325  day þ 0:0572  C kg  0:0687  FAkg þ 20:7084
ð5Þ
The day number which separates the rules is 17.5. It can be seen
that slag is not used as a parameter in the linear model rule and has
no effect on results at the produced linear model. The results
obtained using expression (5) are given in Table 1(h). The experi-
mental results of compressive strength, Table 1(f) and the results
of expression (5), Table 1(h) are compared in Fig. 1. As can be seen
in Figs. 1 and 2 there is big consistency between the experimental
results and the calculated results.
Fig. 2. Scatter plot of the measured versus predicted compressive strength of
trained data for M5 rule model.
A correlation coefficient of 0.97 means that a prediction is 97%
successful. The tree structure obtained by the M5P decision tree is
shown in Fig. 3.
Considering these tree model rules are depending on days and
two models are created for day value smaller and greater than
17.5 days as in the M5 rule. M5P classifier results may be
expressed with one or more linear equations. As a result of the
analysis two rules are produced depending on number of days:

day 6 17:5 : 1:188  day þ 0:0844  C kg  0:0347  FAkg  2:4882
Comp: str: ¼
day > 17:5 : 0:1708  day þ 0:0646  C kg  0:0594  FAkg þ 14:6682
ð6Þ
When Eq. (6) is examined, the Eq. (6) is same as the equation in
the M5 rule for days < 17. The equations for days > 17.5 are differ-
ent. As with the M5 rule, in Eq. (6) the slag is not used in equations
and do not affect the results. The results obtained from expression
(6) using experimental results as data are given in Table 1(i). The
experimental results of compressive strength, Table 1(f) and the

3.2. Tree model M5P results for compressive strength values

Tree model M5P is a tree-based classification method. The

method also is capable of producing a classifier rule with tree
structure. For this model, 40 instances shown in Table 1 were
tested. Different cross-validation values were tested to find the
best cross-validation value. For this application 20-fold
cross-validation which gave the best results was used. A 0.97 cor- Fig. 3. M5P tree for compressive strength values. There are two leaves LM1, LM2 in
relation coefficient and a 2.74 mean absolute error was obtained. this tree.
238 Y. Ayaz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 235–240

results of expression (6), Table 1(i) are compared in Fig. 4. There is

big consistency (R2 = 0.966) between experimental results and cal-
culated results (Figs. 4 and 5).

3.3. M5 rule results for UPV

In this section M5 rule is applied to experimental UPV results.

For this model, 40 instances shown in Table 1 were tested.
Different cross-validation values were tested to find the best
cross-validation value. For this application 20-fold cross-
validation which gave the best results was used. A 0.87 correlation
coefficient and a 147.69 mean absolute error was obtained.
According to these results the resulting correlation is 0.87 and
the mean absolute error parameter is very high, 147.69. Rule based Fig. 5. Scatter plot of the measured versus predicted compressive strength of
classifiers results may be expressed with one or more linear equa- trained data for M5P.
tions. As a result of the analysis for UPV two rules are produced
depending on the number of days:

day 6 17:5 : 53:2938  day þ 1:8496  C kg  1:6018  FAkg þ 3239:5785
UPV ¼
day > 17:5 : 1:5217  day þ 0:7172  C kg  1:2234  FAkg þ 4046:5343
ð7Þ
Analyzing the produced linear model rules, 17.5 day is the crit-
ical number of days separating the rules from each other. The slag
is not used in expressions and has no effect for UPV. When slag is
not used in analysis there is no change in results.
The results obtained from expression (7) using experimental
UPV results as data are given in Table 1(j). The experimental results
of UPV, Table 1(g) and the results of expression (7), Table 1(j) are
compared according to experiment numbers in Fig. 6. UPV experi-
mental results and training outputs are compatible but not as good
as compressive strength results (Figs. 6 and 7).
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental UPV data with training results obtained from
M5 rule model.
3.4. Tree model M5P results for UPV results

In this section the tree model M5P is applied to UPV output. For
this model, 40 instances shown in Table 1 were tested. Different
cross-validation values were tested to find the best cross-
validation value. For this application 20-fold cross-validation
which gave the best results was used. A 0.87 correlation coefficient
and a 147.69 mean absolute error was obtained.
Tree model obtained from tree model M5P is given in Fig. 8.
There is a separation for 17.5 days is in UPV results as in tree
structure obtained by the tree model M5P. This mean 17.5 days
is critical value for both compressive strength and UPV.
According to these results the resulting correlation is 0.87 and
the mean absolute error parameter is very high as 147.69. It can
be said that although the M5P tree and M5 rule are the different

Fig. 7. Scatter plot of the measured versus predicted UPV of trained data for M5
rule model.

Fig. 8. M5P tree for UPV values.

kinds of classifiers, the results of both are similar for UPV values.
Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental data with training results obtained from M5P As a result of the analysis for UPV two rules are produced depend-
tree model. ing on the number of days:
 Y. Ayaz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 235–240 239

Table 1
Properties of the test set mixes.

Input data Experimental outputs Predicted outputs for Predicted outputs for UPV
compressive strength
a b c d e f g h i j k
Sample ID Day Cement Fly Ash Slag Comp. strength UPV M5 rule (MPa) Tree model M5 rule Tree model
(kg) (kg) (kg) (MPa) (m/s) M5P (MPa) (m/s) M5P (m/s)
1 3 350 – – 27.90 4060 30.62 30.62 4047 4047
2 3 175 175 – 8.60 3460 9.77 9.77 3443 3443
3 3 140 210 – 4.50 2980 5.60 5.60 3322 3322
4 3 105 245 – 2.40 2720 1.44 1.44 3201 3201
5 3 175 – 175 9.00 3460 15.85 15.85 3723 3723
6 3 140 – 210 7.50 3510 12.89 12.89 3658 3658
7 3 105 – 245 4.90 3330 9.94 9.94 3594 3594
8 3 175 87.5 87.5 10.50 3750 12.81 12.81 3583 3583
9 3 140 105 105 7.30 3570 9.25 9.25 3490 3490
10 3 105 122.5 122.5 5.40 3450 5.69 5.69 3397 3397
11 7 350 – – 38.10 4270 35.37 35.37 4260 4260
12 7 175 175 – 13.70 3780 14.53 14.53 3656 3656
13 7 140 210 – 9.10 3580 10.36 10.36 3535 3535
14 7 105 245 – 4.50 3270 6.19 6.19 3414 3414
15 7 175 – 175 20.00 3490 20.60 20.60 3936 3936
16 7 140 – 210 17.80 3950 17.64 17.64 3872 3872
17 7 105 – 245 15.10 3980 14.69 14.69 3807 3807
18 7 175 87.5 87.5 18.40 3990 17.56 17.56 3796 3796
19 7 140 105 105 16.20 3800 14.00 14.00 3703 3703
20 7 105 122.5 122.5 11.60 3760 10.44 10.44 3611 3611
21 28 350 – – 43.60 4310 44.44 42.06 4340 4296
22 28 175 175 – 20.90 3990 22.41 20.36 4001 3884
23 28 140 210 – 13.80 3910 18.00 16.02 3933 3801
24 28 105 245 – 9.70 3640 13.59 11.68 3865 3719
25 28 175 – 175 35.00 4200 34.43 30.76 4215 4116
26 28 140 – 210 32.30 4230 32.43 28.49 4190 4080
27 28 105 – 245 26.40 4110 30.42 26.23 4164 4044
28 28 175 87.5 87.5 33.40 4260 28.42 25.56 4108 4000
29 28 140 105 105 30.90 4160 25.21 22.26 4061 3941
30 28 105 122.5 122.5 25.30 4080 22.01 18.96 4015 3882
31 120 350 – – 54.60 4470 56.63 57.77 4480 4574
32 120 175 175 – 35.00 4140 34.60 36.07 4141 4162
33 120 140 210 – 31.30 4140 30.19 31.73 4073 4079
34 120 105 245 – 27.40 4070 25.78 27.39 4005 3997
35 120 175 – 175 50.20 4280 46.62 46.47 4355 4394
36 120 140 – 210 45.40 4340 44.62 44.21 4330 4358
37 120 105 – 245 37.40 4250 42.61 41.95 4304 4322
38 120 175 87.5 87.5 41.90 4230 40.61 41.27 4248 4278
39 120 140 105 105 35.30 4220 37.40 37.97 4201 4219
40 120 105 122.5 122.5 34.70 4150 34.20 34.67 4155 4159


day 6 17:5 : 53:2938  day þ 1:8496  C kg  1:6018  FAkg þ 3239:5785
UPV ¼
day > 17:5 : 3:0205  day þ 1:026  C kg  1:3283  FAkg þ 3851:9541
ð8Þ
In expression (8), 17.5 day is the critical day separating the rules
from each other. The slag is not used in expressions and has no
effect for UPV. When slag is not used in the analysis there is no
change in results.
The results obtained from expression (8) using experimental
UPV results as data are given in Table 1(k). The experimental
results of UPV, Table 1(g) and the results of expression (8),
Table 1(k) are compared according to experiment numbers in
Fig. 9. UPV experimental results and training outputs are compat-
ible (Figs. 9 and 10).
The comparison between measured and predicted values is
Fig. 9. Comparison of experimental UPV data with training results obtained from
shown in Figs. 1–10. Results in Figs. 1–10 show that both M5 rule tree model M5P.
model and M5P rule tree model are capable of generalizing
between the input and the output variables with reasonably good
predictions. The values of R2 are 0.97 and 0.966 for comparison of is able to follow a very close trend to the experimental values. The
measured and predicted compressive strength of concrete for M5 values of R2 are 0.87 and 0.87 for comparison of measured and pre-
rule model and M5P rule tree model, respectively. High R2 values dicted UPV of concrete for M5 rule model and M5P rule tree model,
reflect the strength of the correlation between measured and pre- respectively. The high values of R2 demonstrate that the proposed
dicted variables. Moreover, as it was depicted in Figs. 1–10 that the model is suitable for predicting the compressive strength and UPV
proposed models formulation for compressive strength prediction values very closely with the experimental values.
240 Y. Ayaz et al. / Construction and Building Materials 94 (2015) 235–240
Fig. 10. Scatter plot of the measured versus predicted UPV of trained data for M5P
rule tree model.
The M5 rule model and M5P rule tree model developed in this
study is used to evaluate the effects of content of cement, FA and
BFS, and curing period on the compressive strength and UPV of
40 concrete mix-design data. The statistical values demonstrate
that the proposed M5 rule model and M5P rule tree model are suit-
able and predicts the compressive strength and UPV values very
close to the experimental values.
4. Conclusions
This study is apparently the first to investigate classifiers, with
rule-based M5 rule and tree model M5P in the area of data mining
to predict the compressive strength and the UPV values of con-
crete. The parameters such as amount of cement, BFS and FA,
and curing period were selected as input variables. The model out-
put variables were the compressive strength and UPV values of
concrete. The proposed models successfully predicted values of
compressive strength and UPV of concrete as given in the previous
section. Thus, models can be regarded as a very effective method to
predict compressive strength and UPV of concrete with high vol-
ume admixtured concrete. Closed form equations were obtained
for all results depending on day numbers. 97% and 87% success is
obtained in predicting compressive strength and UPV results,
respectively. The results of the investigation can be summarized
as follows:
(1) The results from this study suggests that M5 rule model and
M5P tree rule model can be used as an alternative modeling
tool for concrete or cement-based materials.
(2) Looking at the results achieved high level performance is
provided. It was seen that M5 rule and tree model M5P
demonstrated good performance.
(3) Compressive strength and UPV values can be found by the
proposed equations for each composition.
(4) The 17.5 days value is seen as the critical value for all
models.
References
_ Türkmen, M.B. Karakoç, Relationship between ultrasonic
[1] R. Demirboğa, I.
velocity and compressive strength for high volume mineral admixtured
concretes, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 2329–2336.
[2] V. Pfister, A. Tundo, V. Luprano, Evaluation of concrete strength by means of
ultrasonic waves: a method for the selection of coring position, Constr. Build.
Mater. 61 (2014) 278–284.
[3] A. Bogas, M.G. Gomes, A. Gomes, Compressive strength evaluation of structural
lightweight concrete by non-destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method,
Ultrasonics 53 (2013) 962–972.
[4] A.S. Nik, O.L. Omran, Estimation of compressive strength of self-compacted
concrete with fibers consisting nano-SiO2 using ultrasonic pulse velocity,
Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 654–662.
[5] A. Jain, A. Kathuria, A. Kumar, Y. Verma, K. Murari, Combined use of non-
destructive tests for assessment of strength of concrete in structure, Proc. Eng.
54 (2013) 241–251.
[6] T. Yılmaz, B. Ercikdi, K. Karaman, G. Kulekci, Assessment of strength properties
of cemented paste backfill by ultrasonic pulse velocity test, Ultrasonics 54
(2014) 1386–1394.
[7] M. Pal, S. Deswal, Support vector regression based shear strength modeling of
deep beams, Comput. Struct. 89 (2011) 1430–1439.
[8] M.Z. Sbartai, S. Laurens, S.M. Elachachi, C. Payan, Concrete properties
evaluation by statistical fusion of NDT techniques, Constr. Build. Mater. 37
(2012) 943–950.
[9] A.T.A. Dantas, M.B. Leite, K.J. Nagahama, Prediction of compressive strength of
concrete containing construction and demolition waste using artificial neural
networks, Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (2013) 717–722.
[10] U. Atıcı, Prediction of the strength of mineral admixture concrete using
multivariable regression analysis and an artificial neural network, Expert Syst.
Appl. 38 (2011) 9609–9618.
[11] A. Alexandridis, D. Triantis, I. Stavrakas, C. Stergiopoulos, A neural network
approach for compressive strength prediction in cement-based materials
through the study of pressure-stimulated electrical signals Construction and
Building Materials 30 (2012) 294–300.
[12] H.I. Witten, E. Frank, M.A. Hall, Data Mining, Principle Machine Learning Tools
and Techniques, Burlingtan, MA, 2011.
[13] J. Zurada, A.S. Levitan, J. Guan, A Comparison of Regression and Artificial
Intelligence Methods in a Mass Appraisal Context, Journal of Real Estate
Research 33 (3) (2011) 349–388.
[14] E.M.R. Fairbairn, N.F.F. Ebecken, C.N.M. Paz, F.J. Ulm, Determination of
probabilistic parameters of concrete: solving the inverse problem by using
artificial neural networks, Comput. Struct. 78 (2000) 497–503.
[15] E.M.R. Fairbairn, M.M. Silvoso, R.D. Toledo Filho, J.L.D. Alves, N.F.F. Ebecken,
Optimization of mass concrete construction using genetic algorithms, Comput.
Struct. 82 (2004) 281–299.
[16] M.N.S. Hadi, Neural networks applications in concrete structures, Comput.
Struct. 81 (2003) 373–381.
[17] S. Akkurta, S. Özdemir, G. Tayfur, B. Akyol, The use of GA–ANNs in the
modelling of compressive strength of cement mortar, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (7)
(2003) 973–979.
[18] Alexandre G. Evsukoff, Eduardo M.R. Fairbairn, Etore F. Faria, Marcos M.
Silvoso, Romildo D. Toledo Filho, Modeling adiabatic temperature rise during
concrete hydration: a data mining approach, Comput. Struct. 84 (2006) 2351–
2362.
[19] J.R. Quinlan, Learning with continuous classes, in: Proceedings 5th Australian
Joint Conference on Artificial Intellegence, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992,
pp. 343–348.
[20] Y. Wang, I.H. Witten, Inducing Model Trees for Continuous Classes, in: Proc. of
the 9th European Conf. on Machine Learning, 1997.
[21] L. Breiman, J.H. Friedman, R.A. Olshen, C.J. Stone, Classification and Regression
Trees, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1984. Since 1993 this book has been
published by Chapman & Hall, New York.
[22] J.R. Quinlan, Simplifying Decision Trees, Proc workshop on Knowledge
Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems, Banff, Canada, 1986.
[23] H. Zheng, L. Chen, X. Han, X. Zhao, Y. Ma, Classification and regression tree for
analysis of soybean yield variability among fields in Northeast China: The
importance of phosphorus application rates under drought conditions, Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. (2009).
[24] X. Wu, V. Kumar, CART: Classification and Regression Trees, Top Ten
Algorithms in Data Mining, Chapman and Hall, 2009.
[25] E. Frank, I.H. Witten. Generating accurate rule sets without global
optimization, in: Proc. Of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine
Learning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1998, pp. 144–151.
[26] G. Holmes, M. Hall, E. Prank, Generating Rule Sets from Model Trees, Advanced
Topics in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1999. 1–12.
[27] B. Ratner, The Correlation Coefficient: Definition, <http://www.dmstat1.com/
res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html>.