Computers and Concrete, Vol. 32, No.

6 (2023) 607-613
https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2023.32.6.607 607

Comparative studies of different machine learning algorithms

in predicting the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
Sagar Paruthi, Ibadur Rahmana and Asif Husainb

Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

(Received June 17 2023, Revised August 8, 2023, Accepted August 9, 2023)

Abstract. The objective of this work is to determine the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete utilizing four distinct
machine learning approaches. These techniques are known as gradient boosting machine (GBM), generalized linear model
(GLM), extremely randomized trees (XRT), and deep learning (DL). Experimentation is performed to collect the data that is
then utilized for training the models. Compressive strength is the response variable, whereas curing days, curing temperature,
silica fume, and nanosilica concentration are the different input parameters that are taken into consideration. Several kinds of
errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), coefficient of correlation (CC), variance account for (VAF), RMSE to
observation’s standard deviation ratio (RSR), and Nash-Sutcliffe effectiveness (NSE), were computed to determine the
effectiveness of each algorithm. It was observed that, among all the models that were investigated, the GBM is the surrogate
model that can predict the compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete with the highest degree of precision.
Keywords: compressive strength; GBM; geopolymer concrete; GLM; machine learning; XRT

1. Introduction qualities of geopolymer concrete based on these parameters,

Concrete known as geopolymer is produced from silicon
and aluminum-rich industrial byproducts like fly ash and
slag. Geopolymer concrete may be made without using
natural resources like limestone, which are essential to
produce Portland cement-based concrete. In comparison to
conventional concrete, this makes it eco-friendlier and more
long-lasting. When compared to regular concrete,
geopolymer concrete offers many benefits. It is more
durable, can withstand more stress, and is impervious to
chemicals. It’s cheaper to make and has a less carbon
footprint. If successful, geopolymer concrete might replace
conventional concrete as the material of choice in the
building sector.
It takes a long time to calculate the concrete’s strength
and characteristics once it has solidified. Machine learning
methods may be used for the same purpose. Machine
learning is a subfield of AI that focuses on the creation of
algorithms with the ability to “learn” from data and then use
that data to generate inferences and predictions (Chou et al.
2014). Financial services, medical care, and even
transportation have all made use of machine learning. In
recent years, it has been used in the building trade to foretell
the characteristics of geopolymer concrete. Several
variables affect the final geopolymer concrete product,
including the raw components and quantities employed,
curing conditions, and mixing techniques. To forecast the
Corresponding author, Research Scholar
E-mail: sparuthi57@gmail.com
a
Assistant Professor
b
Professor
Copyright © 2023 Techno-Press, Ltd.
http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=cac&subpage=8
machine learning algorithms can be trained on data from
prior trials. The necessity for costly and time-consuming
physical experiments can be reduced as a result.
Several machine learning algorithms are available in the
literature for predicting the strength of the different types of
concrete. Statistical analysis of different machine learning
algorithms in predicting the strength of concrete was
presented by Young et al. ( 2019). Ben Chaabene et al.
2020) presented a critical review of different machine
learning algorithms employed by the researchers for
predicting the strength of the concrete. Khan et al. 2022) in
their work highlighted the importance of machine learning
algorithms in predicting the behavior of concrete. The
major challenges towards the application of machine
learning algorithms in concrete industry were presented by
Li et al. (2022).
With the help of machine learning algorithms, (Ozcan et
al. 2017) studied the influence of blast furnace slag and
waste tire rubber on the strength of the concrete. Using
artificial neural network and neuro-fuzzy system, Miladirad
et al. ( 2021) predicted the compressive strength of concrete
containing waste tire rubber. Employing four different kinds
of soft computing techniques, Dutta et al. (2018) predicted
the compressive strength of concrete. Adaptive boosting
approach was employed by Feng et al. (2020) for predicting
the compressive strength of concrete. Unlu et al. (2020)
predicted the slump flow of concrete using support vector
regression, random forest, and M5P trees models. With the
help of hybrid surrogate machine learning algorithms,
Asteris et al. (2021) predicted the compressive strength of
the concrete. Garg et al. (2022) predicted the compressive
strength of the concrete containing nanosilica using support
vector machine and Gaussian process regression algorithms.
Using radial basis function neural network Al-Gburi et al.
ISSN: 1598-8198 (Print), 1598-818X (Online)
608 Sagar Paruthi, Ibadur Rahman and Asif Husain
(2022) predicted the compressive strength of concrete.
Several works are available in literature regarding the
prediction of compressive strength of different types of
concrete.
The compressive strength of geopolymer paste, mortar,
and concrete was predicted by Nazari and Sanjayan (2015)
using a variety of optimization approaches in conjunction
with support vector machine and artificial neural network
algorithms. Gene expression programming technique was
used by Shahmansouri et al. (2020) for predicting the
compressive strength of GGBS-based geopolymer concrete.
For predicting the compressive strength of fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete, Nguyen et al. (2020) presented a deep
residual network with no dropout and no normalization.
According to the study of Ahmad et al. (2021), the boosting
strategy outperformed ANN and AdaBoost for predicting
the compressive strength of high calcium fly ash
geopolymer concrete. Cao et al. (2022) demonstrated that
XGBoost outperformed support vector machine and
multilayer perceptron techniques in predicting the
compressive strength of GPC.
The use of machine learning techniques for predicting
the strength of geopolymer concrete is relatively a new area
to explore. In literature, most of the researchers used single
machine learning technique to predict the compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete. Present study aims to
carry out the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
using four different machine learning techniques, namely,
gradient boosting machine (GBM), generalized linear
model (GLM), extremely randomized trees (XRT), and
deep learning (DL) techniques. The data used for training
the models are obtained experimentally. Four different input
parameters (curing days, curing temperature, silica fume,
and nanosilica content) are taken as the input parameters
while compressive strength is the response variable. The
efficiency of each technique is worked out by computing
the various errors such as, root mean square error (RMSE),
coefficient of correlation (CC), variance account for (VAF),
RMSE to observation’s standard deviation ratio (RSR), and
Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) were calculated. Amongst
the models studied, GBM was found to be the most accurate
surrogate model which can predict the compressive strength
of the geopolymer concrete.
2. Mathematical modeling
In this section, the mathematical modeling for the GBM,
GLM, XRT, and DL techniques is presented.
2.1 Gradient boosting machine (GBM)
A type of ensemble learning is the boosting approach.
These approaches’ fundamental principles revolve around
two steps: (1) learning about the base learners; and (2)
combining all the learned models into a single forecast.
Gradient Boosting can be used with any differentially
differentiable loss function because it is a generic model,
however just because it can be demonstrated to work with a
squared loss model does not imply that it can be fully
understood throughout the learning process.
Additive modelling is the foundation of boosting
algorithms. The basic idea is to combine multiple smaller
functions to create a more complex one. As in gradient
boosting, a complex model is created by combining
multiple simpler models. Gradient boosting employs a
weighted sum of a sufficient number of base learners to
train a model.
𝐹0 (𝑥) = arg ∙ min ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐿(𝑦𝑖 , 𝛾) (1)
𝛾
where, (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖 )𝑛𝑖=1 represents the input dataset, 𝐿 (𝑦, 𝐹(𝑥))
is the differentiable loss function, and 𝑀 is the number of
iterations.
For 𝑚 = 1 to 𝑀, the pseudo-residual is computed as
𝜕𝐿(𝑦𝑖 ,𝐹(𝑥𝑖 ))
𝑟𝑖𝑚 = − [ ]
𝜕𝐹(𝑥𝑖 )
𝐹(𝑥)=𝐹𝑚−1 (𝑥) (2)
for 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑛.
After that, a base learner ℎ𝑚 (𝑥) is fitted to the pseudo-
residuals i.e., it is trained using the training set. The
multiplier 𝛾𝑚 is computed as the optimization of the Eq. (3)
as
𝛾𝑚 = arg ∙ min ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐿(𝑦𝑖 , 𝐹𝑚−1 (𝑥𝑖 ) + 𝛾ℎ𝑚 (𝑥𝑖 )) (3)
𝛾
The model is then updated as
𝐹𝑚 (𝑥) = 𝐹𝑚−1 (𝑥) + 𝛾𝑚 ℎ𝑚 (𝑥) (4)
2.2 Generalized linear model (GLM)
The response variable “y” is described in a linear
regression model as a function or linear combination of all
the predictors “X”. The underlying linear relationship
between the predictors and response variables. Additionally,
the response variable’s error distribution should follow a
normal distribution. Consequently, a linear model will be
created. There are three main components in the case of
GLM: linear predictor (linear relation), link function (the
function links linear predictor and the parameter for
probability distribution), and probability distribution.
Mathematically, the same can be expressed as
In 𝜆𝑖 = 𝑏0 + 𝑏1 𝑥1 (5)
𝑦𝑖 ~Poisson(𝜆𝑖 ) (6)
where, ln is the link function and 𝑏0 + 𝑏1 𝑥𝑖 is the linear
predictor.
In next, the Poisson regression is applied. The prediction
curve looks like an exponential curve.
𝜆𝑖 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝑏0 + 𝑏1 𝑥𝑖 ) (7)
2.3 Extremely randomized trees (XRT)
The XRT algorithm was presented by Geurts et al.
(2006) and same has been employed during the present
study.
XRT builds the regression trees. This algorithm chooses
 Comparative studies of different machine learning algorithms in predicting the compressive strength of geopolymer…
Table 1 Performance evaluation parameters with the ideal value
Index
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
Correlation Coefficient (CC)
Variance Account For (VAF)
RMSE to observations’ standard deviation ratio (RSR)
Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE)
carefully the nodes which are to be cut at random and to
grow new trees. At first, a node is to be spilt based on the
attributes of the dataset 𝑆. If the split is true, then the code
will return nothing, else, it will select the attributes 𝐾
among nonconstant attributes. Then the splits are drawn as
{𝑠1 … 𝑠𝑘 } (8)
where 𝑠𝑖 represents a randomized split that has to be
considered.
Now, the score is calculated as
𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑠∗ , 𝑆) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖=𝑖…𝑘 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒(𝑠𝑖 , 𝑆) (9)
In the similar manner, if the split from all the nodes
returns as constant, the XRT gives that value as the final
predicted output.
2.4 Deep learning (DL)
Some of the data pre-processing that is generally
involved with machine learning is eliminated with deep
learning. These algorithms can handle text and visual data
that is unstructured and automate feature extraction,
reducing the need for human specialists.
Deep neural networks are made up of many layers of
interconnected nodes, each of which improves upon the
prediction or categorization made by the one underneath it.
Forward propagation refers to the movement of calculations
through the network. A deep neural network’s visible layers
are its input and output layers. The deep learning model
ingests the data for processing in the input layer, and the
final prediction or classification is performed in the output
layer.
Backpropagation is a different method that uses
techniques like gradient descent to calculate prediction
errors before changing the function’s weights and biases by
iteratively going back through the layers to train the model.
A neural network can make predictions and make necessary
corrections for any faults thanks to forward propagation and
backpropagation working together. The algorithm
continuously improves in accuracy over time.
2.5 Dataset
The dataset used for training the model is obtained
experimentally. The four variables namely, curing days,
curing temperature, silica fume, and nanosilica content are
609
Ideal Value
1 2
√ ∑𝑟𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥𝑖𝑝 ) 0
𝑟
∑𝑟𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 −𝑥̅𝑖 )(𝑥𝑖𝑝 −𝑥̅𝑖𝑝 )
2 1
√∑𝑟𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 −𝑥̅ 𝑖 )2 ∑𝑟𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖𝑝 −𝑥̅𝑖𝑝 )
var(𝑥𝑖 −𝑥𝑖𝑝 )
1− 100
var(𝑥𝑖 )
RMSE
0
Standard Deviation
2
∑𝑟𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 −𝑥𝑖𝑝 )
1 − [∑𝑟 ] 1
𝑖=1(|𝑥𝑖 −𝑥𝑖𝑝 |+|𝑥𝑖 −𝑥̅ 𝑖 |)
taken as the input, whereas the compressive strength of the
geopolymer concrete is the response variable.
2.6 Performance evaluation
For evaluating the performance of the four ML
algorithms employed during the present work, the errors are
determined as reported in Table 1.
Where, 𝑥𝑖 and 𝑥𝑖𝑝 are the actual and predicted value for
the compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete and 𝑟
denotes the total dataset count used. The bar above the 𝑥
represents the mean value.
3. Results and discussion
In this investigation, compressive strength of samples is
determined for experimental results by using different mix
proportion as shown in Table 2 and then MATLAB was
used to create a variety of machine learning models. The
AMD Ryzen 5 5625U 2.30 GHz laptop with Radeon
Graphics is used to assess the model’s performance,
together with 8 GB of RAM. All the input data is
normalized between zero and one to ensure objectivity. To
further eliminate bias in the ML algorithm’s training
process, its training data % was selected at random. For
obtaining the effective percentage of the data to be used for
training the model, the models are trained using 40%, 50%,
60%, 70%, and 80% training data. The errors are computed
for predicted value of the compressive strength for the
unseen dataset (testing dataset). The violin-box plots are
plotted for the range of errors obtained. The results for the
same are reported in Fig. 1. In the present study, 80% of the
data is used for training the model and remaining 20% is
used for testing the model as the error is least in this case.
The various errors obtained for the training (Tr) and the
testing (Te) models are represented in Table 3.
The GBM model predicted the compressive strength of
the geopolymer concrete most effectively as the errors
obtained for GBM model is nearer to the ideal values (ideal
values are reported in Table 2 in brackets) followed by DL
algorithm. GLM was found to perform worst in predicting
the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete amongst
the models studied.
Details of models trained: Hereby, the details of the
GBM, GLM, XRT, and DL models trained using 80%
training dataset is presented. Fig. 2 presents the variation of
610 Sagar Paruthi, Ibadur Rahman and Asif Husain

Table 2 GPC mix proportions of materials for different grades of concrete (kg/m 3)
Coarse Curing
Mix FA GGBS Alccofine Nano Silica Silica Fume Sand
Aggregate temperature (°C)
N0C27 149.17 213.1 63.93 0 0 547.8 1276.8 27
N0C60 149.17 213.1 63.93 0 0 547.8 1276.8 60
N0C75 149.17 213.1 63.93 0 0 547.8 1276.8 75
N0C90 149.17 213.1 63.93 0 0 547.8 1276.8 90
N0120 149.17 213.1 63.93 0 0 547.8 1276.8 120
N0.5C27 149.17 213.1 63.93 2.13 21.13 547.8 1276.8 27
N0.5C60 149.17 213.1 63.93 2.13 21.13 547.8 1276.8 60
N0.5C75 149.17 213.1 63.93 2.13 21.13 547.8 1276.8 75
N0.5C90 149.17 213.1 63.93 2.13 21.13 547.8 1276.8 90
N0.5C120 149.17 213.1 63.93 2.13 21.13 547.8 1276.8 120
N1C27 149.17 213.1 63.93 4.26 42.6 547.8 1276.8 27
N1C60 149.17 213.1 63.93 4.26 42.6 547.8 1276.8 60
N1C75 149.17 213.1 63.93 4.26 42.6 547.8 1276.8 75
N1C90 149.17 213.1 63.93 4.26 42.6 547.8 1276.8 90
N1C120 149.17 213.1 63.93 4.26 42.6 547.8 1276.8 120
N1.5C27 149.17 213.1 63.93 6.39 63.9 547.8 1276.8 27
N1.5C60 149.17 213.1 63.93 6.39 63.9 547.8 1276.8 60
N1.5C75 149.17 213.1 63.93 6.39 63.9 547.8 1276.8 75
N1.5C90 149.17 213.1 63.93 6.39 63.9 547.8 1276.8 90
N1.5C120 149.17 213.1 63.93 6.39 63.9 547.8 1276.8 120

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 1 Variation of % error (×100) (represented as range on Y-axis) for unseen dataset [% error=(predicted value-actual
value×100)/actual value] for different count of training dataset used for training the machine learning algorithm (a) GBM, (b)
GLM, (c) XRT and (d) DL (The error is determined for the testing dataset, i.e., unseen dataset (Range on Y-axis indicates the
error range in the prediction of the compressive strength of the concrete for model obtained using different % of training
dataset in training the model).)
 Comparative studies of different machine learning algorithms in predicting the compressive strength of geopolymer… 611

Table 3 Statistical errors in predicting the compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete
RMSE (0) CC (1) VAF (100) RSR (0) NSE (1)
Model
Tr Te Tr Te Tr Te Tr Te Tr Te
GBM 0.0204 0.0357 0.9142 0.8870 98.940 96.342 0.0289 0.0401 0.9091 0.8762
DL 0.0791 0.0952 0.8308 0.7771 96.703 94.551 0.0810 0.0993 0.8123 0.7853
XRT 0.1789 0.2150 0.7017 0.6545 93.392 91.187 0.2072 0.3260 0.6004 0.5499
GLM 0.4002 0.4471 0.5893 0.5102 90.568 88.045 0.4291 0.5529 0.5132 0.4885

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 2 Variation of the training and testing deviance for (a) GBM, (b) GLM, (c) XRT and (d) DL for different model
parameters

the training and deviance of the compressive strength of the
geopolymer concrete for different model parameters. For
GBM, as the number of trees reaches 135, the deviance
becomes constant. Similar types of studies are also carried
out with respect to the leaves and depth. In the case of XRT,
the model trained using 30 number of trees shows minimum
value for the deviance. Hence, the same number of trees are
adopted for training the XRT model. In the case of GLM,
after 20 iterations, the deviance became constant. Therefore,
the same is adopted in further studies. DL trained using
8000 epochs is used for further studies. The details of the
GBM and XRT models are presented in Table 4.
Fig. 3 shows the agreement line diagram for the
predicted v/s the actual value for the compressive strength
of the geopolymer concrete using the trained models. For
the GBM model, most of the values lie within the error
range of ±5% with maximum values lying near to the
perfect agreement line i.e., the line on which the actual and
predicted values are same. In the case of GLM, most of the
predicted values lie outside the range of ±5%. Thus, GBM
can predict the compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete with good accuracy.
Reason for the best performance of GBM compared to
the other modes studied: The GBM is found to perform best
compared to the DL, XRT, and GLM models. The reason
for the same can be summarized as:
• Because the gradient boosting model adheres to
ensemble learning, handling and interpreting the data is
simpler.
• GBM is one of the best methods for processing bigger
datasets and computing with weak learners at least loss.
• A robust technique for machine learning that can
quickly detect overfitting training datasets is the
gradient boosting algorithm.
Sensitivity analysis: The output variable is always
dependent on the several input variables. However, the
extent of the dependency of the output is different for all the
input variables adopted. Hereby, the results for the
612 Sagar Paruthi, Ibadur Rahman and Asif Husain

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 3 Actual v/s predicted value for compressive strength of geopolymer concrete obtained using (a) GBM, (b) DL, (c) XRT
and (d) GLM models for unseen dataset

Table 4 Model parameters for GBM and GLM models

Model parameters GBM GLM
Number of trees 135 30
Minimum depth 2 5
Maximum depth 3 9
Minimum leaves 3 10
Maximum leaves 4 31

4. Conclusions

Fig. 4 Sensitivity of the output variable i.e., compressive
strength on different input variables adopted over the scaled
importance to 1
sensitivity analysis are presented in Fig. 4. It can be seen
that all the algorithms predicted that the nanosilica content
widely affects the compressive strength of the GPC. This is
true to a large extent as the nanosilica is the finest material
that is adopted in the present work. Finer the material is
used during the preparation of the concrete, more will be
the compressive strength obtained, keeping the other
parameters constant. Followed by nanosilica content,
temperature is observed to be the second most important
variable affecting the compressive strength of the concrete,
while silica fume being the lowest one.
Present study aims to predict the compressive strength
of geopolymer concrete using four different machine
learning techniques, namely, GBM, DL, XRT, and GLM.
Four different input parameters were considered for training
the models. The dataset used during the present study was
obtained experimentally. It was observed that the GBM was
able to predict the compressive strength of the geopolymer
concrete with good accuracy followed by DL technique.
GLM was not able to predict the compressive strength as
the error in case of GLM was large.
References
Ahmad, A., Ahmad, W., Chaiyasarn, K., Ostrowski, K.A., Aslam,
F., Zajdel, P. and Joyklad, P. (2021), “Prediction of geopolymer
concrete compressive strength using novel machine learning
 Comparative studies of different machine learning algorithms in predicting the compressive strength of geopolymer… 613

algorithms”, Polym., 13, 3389. Build. Eng., 31, 101326.

https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13193389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101326.
Al-Gburi, S.N.A., Akpinar, P. and Helwan, A. (2022), “Machine Unlu, R. (2020), “An assessment of machine learning models for
learning in concrete’s strength prediction”, Comput. Concrere, slump flow and examining redundant features”, Comput.
29, 433-444. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2022.29.6.433. Concrete, 25, 565-574.
Asteris, P.G., Skentou, A.D., Bardhan, A., Samui, P. and https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2020.25.6.565.
Pilakoutas, K. (2021), “Predicting concrete compressive Young, B.A., Hall, A., Pilon, L., Gupta, P. and Sant, G. (2019),
strength using hybrid ensembling of surrogate machine learning “Can the compressive strength of concrete be estimated from
models”, Cement Concrete Res., 145, 106449. knowledge of the mixture proportions?: New insights from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106449. statistical analysis and machine learning methods”, Cement
Ben Chaabene, W., Flah, M. and Nehdi, M.L. (2020), “Machine Concrete Res., 115, 379-388.
learning prediction of mechanical properties of concrete: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.09.006.
Critical review”, Constr. Build. Mater., 260, 119889.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119889.
Cao, R., Fang, Z., Jin, M. and Shang, Y. (2022), “Application of CC
machine learning approaches to predict the strength property of
geopolymer concrete”, Mater., 15, 2400.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15072400.
Chou, J.S., Tsai, C.F., Pham, A.D. and Lu, Y.H. (2014), “Machine
learning in concrete strength simulations: Multi-nation data
analytics”, Constr. Build. Mater., 73, 771-780.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.054.
Dutta, S., Samui, P. and Kim, D. (2018), “Comparison of machine
learning techniques to predict compressive strength of
concrete”, Comput. Concrete, 21, 463-470.
https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2018.21.4.463.
Feng, D.C., Liu, Z.T., Wang, X.D., Chen, Y., Chang, J.Q., Wei,
D.F. and Jiang, Z.M. (2020), “Machine learning-based
compressive strength prediction for concrete: An adaptive
boosting approach”, Constr. Build. Mater., 230, 117000.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117000.
Garg, A., Aggarwal, P., Aggarwal, Y., Belarbi, M.O., Chalak,
H.D., Tounsi, A. and Gulia, R. (2022), “Machine learning
models for predicting the compressive strength of concrete
containing nano silica”, Comput. Concrete, 30, 33-42.
https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2022.30.1.033.
Geurts, P., Ernst, D. and Wehenkel, L. (2006), “Extremely
randomized trees”, Mach. Learn., 63, 3-42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1.
Khan, K., Ahmad, W., Amin, M.N. and Ahmad, A. (2022), “A
systematic review of the research development on the
application of machine learning for concrete”, Mater., 15, 4512.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15134512.
Li, Z., Yoon, J., Zhang, R., Rajabipour, F., Srubar III, W.V, Dabo,
I. and Radlińska, A. (2022), “Machine learning in concrete
science: Applications, challenges, and best practices”, Comput.
Mater., 8, 127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-022-00810-x.
Miladirad, K., Golafshani, E.M., Safehian, M. and Sarkar, A.
(2021), “Modeling the mechanical properties of rubberized
concrete using machine learning methods”, Comput. Concrete,
28, 567-583. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2021.28.6.567.
Nazari, A. and Sanjayan, J.G. (2015), “Modelling of compressive
strength of geopolymer paste, mortar and concrete by optimized
support vector machine”, Ceram. Int., 41, 12164-12177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.06.037.
Nguyen, K.T., Nguyen, Q.D., Le, T.A., Shin, J. and Lee, K.
(2020), “Analyzing the compressive strength of green fly ash
based geopolymer concrete using experiment and machine
learning approaches”, Constr. Build. Mater., 247, 118581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118581.
Ozcan, G., Kocak, Y. and Gulbandilar, E. (2017), “Estimation of
compressive strength of BFS and WTRP blended cement
mortars with machine learning models”, Comput. Concrete, 9,
275-282. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2017.19.3.275.
Shahmansouri, A.A., Akbarzadeh Bengar, H. and Ghanbari, S.
(2020), “Compressive strength prediction of eco-efficient
GGBS-based geopolymer concrete using GEP method”, J.