Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 296–300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

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

Prediction of the strength of concrete radiation shielding based on

LS-SVM
Xu Juncai ⇑, Ren Qingwen, Shen Zhenzhong
College of Mechanics and Material, Hohai University, No. 1 Xikang Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210098, China

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

Article history: Radiation-shielding concrete (RSC) and conventional concrete differ in strength because of their distinct
Received 25 January 2015 constituents. Predicting the strength of RSC with different constituents plays a vital role in radiation
Received in revised form 10 May 2015 shielding (RS) engineering design. In this study, a model to predict the strength of RSC is established using
Accepted 11 May 2015
a least squares-support vector machine (LS-SVM) through grid search algorithm. The algorithm is used to
Available online 14 June 2015
optimize the parameters of the LS-SVM on the basis of traditional prediction methods for conventional
concrete. The predicted results of the LS-SVM model are compared with the experimental data. The
Keywords:
results of the prediction are stable and consistent with the experimental results. In addition, the studied
Radiation-shielding concrete
Grid search algorithm
parameters exhibit significant effects on the simulation results. Therefore, the proposed method can be
LS-SVM applied in predicting the strength of RSC, and the predicted results can be adopted as an important ref-
Strength prediction erence for RS engineering design.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction of many algorithms, such as the decision tree algorithm, SVM,

The support vector machine (SVM) proposed by Vapnik was
first used to recognize postal code handwriting. This machine
solves quadratic regression problems with inequations.
Subsequently, Suykens and Vandewalle (1999), Suykens et al.
(2002) proposed the least squares-SVM (LS-SVM) based on the
equality constraint and the least square loss function. This machine
can be considered to be a machine learning algorithm in nature.
Predicting the mechanical properties of materials is an impor-
tant research project in materials science. Many studies have
focused on the prediction of high-performance concrete through
machine learning algorithms. Researchers initially used an
artificial neural network with better functional capacity to predict
the behavior of concrete with different constituents and to simu-
late concrete of 28-d strength (Lee, 2003). Recently, scholars have
increasingly applied new algorithms to predict different concrete
performances. For example, Castelli et al. (2013) predicted the
strength of high-performance concrete using a genetic algorithm
with optimized geometric semantics. Gilan et al. (2012) estab-
lished a prediction model of a hybrid SVM based on the particle
swarm optimization algorithm and support vector, which attempts
to predict concrete strength through hybrid algorithms. Chou, who
is a scholar in Taiwan, has conducted extensive work on concrete
prediction in recent years. He studied the prediction performance
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xujc@hhu.edu.cn (X. Juncai).
and linear regression. He also compared the merits and demerits
of each machine learning algorithm. He warned that for different
data sets, hybrid algorithms should be carefully selected according
to actual conditions (Chou et al., 2014; Chou and Pham, 2013; Chou
and Tsai, 2012). In addition, scholars also apply machine learning
algorithms to predict other concrete properties. For example, Yan
and Shi (2010) used an SVM model to accurately predict both the
strength and elasticity modulus of concrete. Ahmadi-Nedushan
(2012) predicted the strength of conventional concrete and of
high-performance concrete as well as simulated the elasticity val-
ues of both conventional concrete and high-performance concrete
using an adjustable fuzzy neural network. The research results
proved that this method is highly reliable. Yuvaraj et al. (2013)
predicted the fracture properties of concrete beams using an
SVM model. The prediction results matched well with the experi-
mental results. Gencel et al. (2011, 2013) adopted an artificial neu-
ral network and linear regression algorithm to study the abrasion
resistance of concrete with different constituents. The results
demonstrated that an artificial neural network is more reliable
than a conventional linear regression algorithm.
Radiation-shielding concrete (RSC), which is also called heavy
concrete, has the best techno-economic performance among the
radiation shielding (RS) materials. Currently, scholars often adopt
machine learning algorithms to predict the RS performance of
RSC. For example, Gencel (2009) used an artificial neural network
to predict the attenuation coefficient of the rays; Akkurt et al.
(2010) predicted the attenuation coefficient of neutrons in heavy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.05.030
0306-4549/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Juncai et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 296–300 297

kxi xk2
concrete through fuzzy logic; Trontl et al. (2007) predicted the 
Kðx; xi Þ ¼ e 2r2 ð6Þ
accumulative factor of a multi-layer shield containing concrete
using an SVM model. In general, these studies focus either on the where r2 is the squared bandwidth, which is optimized through an
properties of high-performance concrete or the RS performance external optimization technique during the training process.
of the RSC, with little attention paid to the strength and other
RSC characteristics. The strength prediction of RSC based on
machine learning algorithms, such as LS-SVM, is a vital scientific 2.2. Implementation of the RSC strength prediction
problem. The prediction of strength and other related properties
can also be used as references and criteria for engineering design. Radiation concrete has a high density and generally contains
magnetite, limonite, or barite as an aggregate, while a certain
amount of boron-containing compounds, lithium, or other light
2. Methodology
element admixtures are added. This concrete not only shields
gamma rays but also effectively captures neutrons to block the for-
2.1. LS-SVM principles
mation of secondary c radiation. Thus, radiation concrete has a
suitable RS effect.
LS-SVM is now widely used and can achieve acceptable results
The characteristics of the aggregates and admixtures of RSC lead
(Van Gestel et al., 2004). The two problem types for which LS-SVM
to performance differences between RSC and ordinary concrete
is used are regression and classification problems. Prediction
after pouring. The design of the concrete radiation process should
belongs to the regression problem.
consider the radiation characteristics of the concrete component.
For regression problems, suppose T is a training set and n is a
These characteristics include the water–cement ratio, ore amount,
sample number. In this case:
ore consumption, additives, and aggregate gradation (Wu, 2008).
T ¼ fðx1 ; y1 Þ; ðx2 ; y2 Þ; . . . ; ðxn ; yn Þg ð1Þ A nonlinear mapping exists between the 28-d strength of the RSC
n
and these characteristics. Thus, one can take advantage of
where xi 2 R is the input vector and yi 2 R is the output variable LS-SVM to predict the RSC strength. This process can be imple-
that corresponds to xi . mented in six steps (Fig. 1):
The optimization problem of LS-SVM can be described as
follows: (1) The radiation concrete components are determined and the
8 amount and percentage of each component is designed
> X
n
< minJðw; b; eÞ ¼ 1 wT w þ l e2
2 2 i based on the engineering design requirements.
w;b;e
i¼1 ð2Þ
>
: (2) The strength of the sample is tested, and the learning sam-
s:t: yi ¼ wT uðxi Þ þ b þ ei ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n ples for the concrete pouring samples of different compo-
nents are generated.
where w is the weight vector, l is the regularization parameter
(3) The LS-SVM model parameters, penalty factor and kernel
(also called the penalty parameter), ei is the error variance, uðÞ
parameters are optimized through a grid search algorithm.
denotes nonlinear mapping from the input space to
(4) The LS-SVM model can be trained through the study sample
high-dimensional feature space, and b is a partial vector.
to establish a nonlinear relationship between the concrete
The function Lagrange of the optimization problem (2) is as
radiation strength of the concrete and the components.
follows:
(5) The concrete radiation strength can be predicted on the basis
X
n
  of the trained LS-SVM model.
Lðw; b; e; aÞ ¼ Jðw; b; eÞ  a wT uðxi Þ þ b þ ei  yi ð3Þ
(6) The prediction reliability can be assessed by comparing the
i¼1
predicted and experimental strength values.
where ai is the Lagrange multiplier and sample (ai –0) is the sup-
port vector.
3. Application and effect analysis
The following equations are obtained based on the Karush–Ku
hn–Tucker (KKT) condition, which is a necessary and sufficient
3.1. Application
condition for the optimal solution of the object function in a non-
linear optimization problem (Kuhn and Tucker, 1951):
In an actual experiment, data sets of biological shielding neu-
8
>
> @L X
n tron ray concrete exhibit a value of 3600 kg/m3 (Table 1). The
>
> ¼0
>
> @w w¼ ai uðxi Þ LS-SVM model is used to predict the RSC strength.
>
>
>
> @L i¼1 80% of the samples given in Table 1 are selected for the training
>
< ¼0
@b X
n set (No. 1 to No. 12), and 20% are selected for the test set (No. 13. to
> @L
) ai ¼ 0 ð4Þ No. 15). The component is used as an input for the LS-SVM.
>
> ¼0 i¼1
>
> @ei However, the RSC strength is the output of the LS-SVM. The RBF
>
> ai ¼ lei ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n
>
> kernel is selected in the implementation of the LS-SVM. The perfor-
>
> @L
: ¼0 wT uðxi Þ þ b þ ei  yi ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n mance of the RBF kernel is determined by a penalty factor (l) and a
@ ai
kernel parameter (r). The grid search algorithm is a popular
where a and b are obtained by solving the right part of Eq. (4). The method that is used to obtain the optimal solution of (l,r).
output value yðxÞ of the new input vector x can be calculated Suppose (l,r) is initially in certain range and then use different
through the following formula: values of l of N and r of M to form the (l,r) of N*M for training
the LS-SVM. The errors of the results are computed based on the
X
n
(l,r) of N*M. according to the training set. The (l,r) that can
yðxÞ ¼ ai Kðx; xi Þ þ b ð5Þ
obtain the minimum computational error is regarded as the opti-
i¼1
mal solution. Using a grid search algorithm, the penalty factor l
where Kðx; xi Þ ¼ uðxÞT uðxi Þ is called the kernel function. The radial and the kernel parameter r are determined to be 2.6975 and
basis function (RBF) is one of the most popular kernel functions 1.0057, respectively. The training set is then used to train the
for SVM. The RBF can be described in the following way: LS-SVM model, which is used, in turn, to compute the RSC strength.
298 X. Juncai et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 296–300

Establish nonlinear
Radiaon Shielding relaonship of
Predict the strength
concrete strength and
of RSC
component design components with
LS-SVM

Opmize the Assessing the

Obtain learning
parameters of LS- reliability of the
sample
SVM predicon results

Fig. 1. Prediction process of RSC strength using LS-SVM.

Table 1
RSC component design parameters and experimental strength values.

Sample Water cement Component (kg/m3) Strength (Mpa)

No. ratio
Water proof Chromium Hematite Limonite Steel shot
agent ore
0–0.3* 0–2 16–31.5 2–5 5–6 16–25 0.3–0.8 0.8–0.15 1.5–2 2–3 3–6
1 0.52 8 600 300 500 200 200 400 100 200 200 200 200 38
2 0.47 8 600 350 650 200 200 300 100 200 200 200 100 28.8
3 0.47 8 600 350 650 200 200 300 100 200 200 200 100 35.3
4 0.44 8 600 350 700 200 200 250 75 200 200 200 75 38.7
5 0.42 9 600 350 750 100 250 250 100 150 150 150 150 40.4
6 0.61 8 600 350 750 200 250 250 50 100 150 200 150 22.5
7 0.58 9.5 650 300 850 100 250 250 80 100 150 200 150 36.4
8 0.42 8.5 0 600 800 233 333 334 300 300 300 300 300 58
9 0.51 8.5 0 600 900 0 200 200 333 333 500 500 534 45.7
10 0.58 0 650 300 850 100 250 250 80 100 150 200 150 36.7
11 0.54 6.4 0 150 675 525 75 150 790 250 375 375 925 46.3
12 0.54 7.5 600 300 500 200 200 400 100 200 200 200 200 34.1
13 0.5 8.5 600 300 550 200 200 350 100 200 200 200 200 38.4
14 0.59 8.5 600 380 800 150 250 250 50 100 150 200 150 27.9
15 0.52 9 650 350 850 100 250 250 50 100 150 200 150 34.9
*
The row data denotes the size of component particle, unit: mm.

Table 2
Computational values of the RSC strength using the LS-SVM.

Sample No. Fitted values Experimental results Sample No. Fitted values Experimental results Sample No. Fitted values Experimental results
1 36.66 38 7 37.25 36.4 13 35.49 38.4
2 33.51 28.8 8 53.01 58 14 29.82 27.9
3 33.51 35.3 9 44.03 45.7 15 38.20 34.9
4 37.56 38.7 10 37.47 36.7
5 40.08 40.4 11 44.47 46.3
6 27.08 22.5 12 36.28 34.1

Table 2 lists the fitted and predicted values of the strength of each We obtained the correlation coefficients between the experi-
sample using the LS-SVM model in case 1. mental and computational values using Eq. (7) based on the data
of Table 2. Fig. 2 shows that the computational values are highly
relevant to the experimental values and that the correlation coeffi-
3.2. Analysis of the LS-SVM prediction performance
cient is approximately equal to 1.
We randomly selected 80% as the training set and 20% as the
We evaluated the effectiveness of the LS-SVM to predict the RSC
prediction set from Table 1 to evaluate the effect of LS-SVM on
behavior through the correlation coefficients of the experimental
the RSC strength for case 2. Table 3 presents the change in the sam-
and computational values. The correlation coefficients between
ple number orders for the two cases.
the experimental and computational results are defined as follows
The sample strength was obtained via LS-SVM from the random
(Erdal, 2013):
samples, as shown in Fig. 3. The computational values of training
P P P set sample No. 1–12 in Fig. 3 fit well with the experimental values
n ni¼1 yi  y ^i  ð ni¼1 yi Þð ni¼1 y ^i Þ
R ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð7Þ in the second case. The computational values of testing set sample
Pn 2 P 2 Pn 2 Pn
i¼1 yi  ð yi Þ ^
i¼1 yi  ð
^ 2
i¼1 yi Þ No. 13–15 in Fig. 3 also match well with the experimental values in
the second case.
^i is the com-
where yi is the experimental value of the ith sample, y We can calculate the correlation coefficients between the
putational value of the ith sample, and n is the sample number. experimental and computational results using Eq. (7) in the second
 X. Juncai et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 296–300 299

Fig. 3. Comparison of the computational and experimental values in the second

Fig. 2. Observed versus fitted RSC strength. case.

case. The coefficient is 0.9809, as shown in Fig. 4. This value is very

close to the correlation coefficients of the first case in Fig. 2. Both
cases are highly relevant.
The LS-SVM accuracy is based on the deviation. The deviation
includes the mean absolute error (MAE), mean relative error
(MRE), and root mean squared error (RMSE), which are defined
as follows:

1X n
MAE ¼ ^i j
jy  y ð8Þ
n i¼1 i
1X n
jyi  y ^i j
MRE ¼ ð9Þ
n i¼1 yi
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn
i¼1 ðyi  yi Þ
^ 2
RMSE ¼ ð10Þ
n

where yi is the experimental value of the ith sample, y ^i is the com-

putational value of the ith sample, and n is the sample number.
We calculated the sample deviations in two cases using the
above equations, as presented in Table 4. The fitting error levels
are relatively low. The prediction error levels are higher than those Fig. 4. Observed versus fitted RSC strength.
of the fitting. All levels are low. The RMSE is less than 5 MPa, the
MAE is less than 4 MPa, and the MRE is 10%.
Table 4
MAE, MRE, and RMSE values for the two samples.
4. Conclusions Original sample Current sample
MAE MRE RMSE MAE MRE RMSE
The differences between RSC and normal concrete include (Mpa) (%) (Mpa) (Mpa) (%) (Mpa)
strength and density (Demir et al., 2010). The study of the RSC
Train 2.181 6.340 2.688 2.216 6.446 2.812
strength prediction using LS-SVM yields the following conclusions: Predict 2.708 7.967 2.770 3.708 9.166 4.489

(1) The prediction result is stable, and the algorithm is simple.

(2) The calculated and measured values are relevant, and the fit-
ting result is suitable. Future work can design more samples to improve the prediction
(3) LS-SVM is an appropriate method to predict RSC strength accuracy of LS-SVM. Deviation is slightly significant because of the
according to the experimental data. insufficient training and test samples. Machine learning algorithms

Table 3
Orders of the sample number for the two cases.

Training set Testing set

Case 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Case 2 13 11 12 4 15 6 1 3 7 2 8 10 9 14 5
300 X. Juncai et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 296–300
such as LS-SVM are potentially useful for predicting and evaluating
other RSC characteristics.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 11132003) and Jiangsu Province
Post-doctor Foundation of China (Grant No. 1401124C). Many con-
structive comments from the anonymous Referees, the Editor and
my friend, Ron Harris, are greatly appreciated.
References
Ahmadi-Nedushan, B., 2012. Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high
strength concrete using ANFIS and optimal nonlinear regression models. Constr.
Build. Mater. 36, 665–673.
Akkurt, I., Akyıldırım, H., Mavi, B., Kilincarslan, S., Basyigit, C., 2010. Radiation
shielding of concrete containing zeolite. Radiat. Meas. 45 (7), 827–830.
Castelli, M., Vanneschi, L., Silva, S., 2013. Prediction of high performance concrete
strength using Genetic Programming with geometric semantic genetic
operators. Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (17), 6856–6862.
Chou, J., Pham, A., 2013. Enhanced artificial intelligence for ensemble approach to
predicting high performance concrete compressive strength. Constr. Build.
Mater. 49, 554–563.
Chou, J., Tsai, C., 2012. Concrete compressive strength analysis using a combined
classification and regression technique. Automat. Constr. 24, 52–60.
Chou, J., Tsai, C., Pham, A., Lu, Y., 2014. Machine learning in concrete strength
simulations: multi-nation data analytics. Constr. Build. Mater. 73, 771–780.
Demir, F., Budak, G., Sahin, R., Karabulut, A., Oltulu, M., Sßerifoğlu, K., 2010. Radiation
transmission of heavyweight and normal-weight concretes containing
colemanite for 6 MV and 18 MV X-rays using linear accelerator. Ann. Nucl.
Energy 37 (3), 339–344.
Erdal, H.I., 2013. Two-level and hybrid ensembles of decision trees for high
performance concrete compressive strength prediction. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
26 (7), 1689–1697.
Gencel, O., 2009. The application of artificial neural networks technique to estimate
mass attenuation coefficient of shielding barrier. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 4 (12), 743–
751.
Gencel, O., Kocabas, F., Gok, M.S., Koksal, F., 2011. Comparison of artificial neural
networks and general linear model approaches for the analysis of abrasive wear
of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (8), 3486–3494.
Gencel, O., Koksal, F., Sahin, M., Durgun, M.Y., Lobland, H.H., Brostow, W., 2013.
Modeling of thermal conductivity of concrete with vermiculite by using
artificial neural networks approaches. Exp. Heat Transfer 26 (4), 360–383.
Gilan, S.S., Jovein, H.B., Ramezanianpour, A.A., 2012. Hybrid support vector
regression – particle swarm optimization for prediction of compressive
strength and RCPT of concretes containing metakaolin. Constr. Build. Mater.
34, 321–329.
Kuhn, H.W., Tucker, A.W., 1951. Nonlinear programming. In: Proceedings of 2nd
Berkeley Symposium. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 481–492.
Lee, S., 2003. Prediction of concrete strength using artificial neural networks. Eng.
Struct. 25 (7), 849–857.
Suykens, J.A.K., Vandewalle, J., 1999. Least squares support vector machines
classifiers. Neural Process. Lett. 19 (03), 293–300.
Suykens, J.A.K., Gestel, T.V., Brabanter, J.D., Moor, B.D., Vandewalle, J., 2002. Least
Squares Support Vector Machines, vol. 4. World Scientific.
Trontl, K., Šmuc, T., Pevec, D., 2007. Support vector regression model for the
estimation of c-ray buildup factors for multi-layer shields. Ann. Nucl. Energy 34
(12), 939–952.
Van Gestel, T., Suykens, J.A., Baesens, B., Viaene, S., Vanthienen, J., Dedene, G.,
Vandewalle, J., 2004. Benchmarking least squares support vector machine
classifiers. Mach. Learn. 54 (1), 5–32.
Wu, C., 2008. The Study on Strong Radiation Shielding Concrete Test of Nuclear
Engineering, Central South University.
Yan, K., Shi, C., 2010. Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high strength
concrete by support vector machine. Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (8), 1479–1485.
Yuvaraj, P., Ramachandra Murthy, A., Iyer, N.R., Sekar, S.K., Samui, P., 2013. Support
vector regression based models to predict fracture characteristics of high
strength and ultra high strength concrete beams. Eng. Fract. Mech. 98, 29–43.