Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Prediction of compressive strength of self-compacting concrete using

four machine learning technics
Yousef El Asri a,⇑, Mouhcine Ben Aicha b, Mounir Zaher a, Adil Hafidi Alaoui a
a
Abdelmalek Essaâdi University, FST, Mechanical and Civil Engineering Laboratory, Tangier, Morocco
b
Structure and Materials Laboratory, National School of Architecture, Rabat, Morocco

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

Article history: In self-compacting concrete (SCC), admixtures and other modifiers are commonly used to decrease
Available online 2 March 2022 bleeding and segregation. Higher air content may be necessary to improve the mixture’s ability to with-
stand freezing and thawing. Based on the suggestions of the AFGC and EFNARC, several SCC mixes were
Keywords: created in this study. There was an air-entrainment admixture (AEA) applied in various percentages.
Self-compacting concrete Experimental studies have been performed to examine the mechanical characteristics of SCC’s, such as
Compressive strength sonic velocity (at 1 and 7 days) and compressive strength (at 1, 7, and 28 days) using different air content.
Multiple linear regression
This mechanical characterization is used taking into account void ratio and water absorption.
Support vector regression
Decision tree regression
In this sense, the objective of this work is to predict the compressive strength at 28 days from the
Random forest regression intrinsic parameters such as void ratio, water absorption, and the mechanical responses, at a young
age, such as sonic velocity and compressive strength (at 1 and 7 days).
To do this, we used the most famous machine learning algorithms to know: Multiple Linear Regression
(MLR), Random Forest Regression (RFR), Decision Tree Regression (DTR) and Support Vector Regression
(SVR). Finally, the best-proposed model is given on the basis of statistical comparison between the differ-
ent used algorithms.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Third International Con-
ference on Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering.

1. Introduction as slump flow, V-Funnel, and L-Box, as well as rheological behavior

In construction sites, concrete placing is made simpler with
self-compacting concrete (SCC). Under the effect of gravity, SCC
will flow and condense easily even in the absence of vibration.
SCC is considered a non-Newtonian fluid of the Bingham type
[1–4]. Its ability to fill formwork and shapes, even narrow, deep,
and strongly reinforced, ensures stability against segregation and
bleeding through to the absence of vibration [5,6].
Despite its great fluidity compared to ordinary concrete, this
type of concrete has good compressive strength. It is important
to know that depending on the desired use, there are SCC of ordi-
nary resistance and SCC of ultra-high performance resistance.
Water, cementitious materials, minerals additives (such as
limestone filler, and silica fume), granular skeleton (sand and
gravel), and chemical additions (such as superplasticizers) are all
used to strengthen and plasticize the concrete. Empirical tests such
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: elasriyousef@gmail.com (Y.E. Asri).
variables such as plastic viscosity and yield stress, are used to char-
acterize the fluidity of the mixture. To put it another way, while
slump flow tests may be used to assess the yield stress of the mix-
ture, V-Funnel testing can be used to determine the plastic viscos-
ity [7–13].
Recent decades have seen the rise of machine learning (ML)
techniques as an appealing modeling method applicable to a wide
range of scientific subjects, including the field of material science.
These data points can be utilized to develop an accurate surrogate
model for pre-selected model parameters, which reduces the need
for expensive and time-consuming experiments. Currently, several
studies have used ML algorithm tools to predict compressive
strength, modulus of elasticity, and other properties of self-
compacting concrete [14–19].
In this sense, to better understand the correlation between
mechanical strength at 28 days, and mechanical and intrinsic
parameters such as compressive strength at a young age (1 and
7 days), ultrasonic velocity, water absorption, and void ratio, this
study will analyze, by ML techniques, the mathematical and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.487
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Third International Conference on Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering.
Yousef El Asri, Mouhcine Ben Aicha, M. Zaher et al.
statistical models developed to efficiently predict the long-term
mechanical resistance according to the parameters mentioned
above.
Consequently, the originality of this work lies in the use of the
four most popular ML methods, namely: support vector regression
(SVR), decision trees regression (DTR), random forest regression
(RFR), and multiple linear regression (MLR).
The ultimate purpose of the proposed research is to find the
best mathematical model, with the most representative statistical
coefficients, of the four Machine Learning methodologies stated
previously in order to predict the compressive strength of an SCC.
A dataset of 100 samples with similar physical and chemical
characteristics will be used to find the best ML models for forecast-
ing SCC’s compressive strength at 28 days [20].
2. Machine learning algorithms
The study of computer algorithms that improve automatically
based on previous experiences and data is commonly known as
machine learning [21]. Supervised Learning, Unsupervised Learn-
ing, and Reinforcement Learning are the three types of machine
learning described in the literature [22]. Because we already have
input and output data, we’ll be using supervised machine learning
in this paper. The following is a summary of the mathematical and
numerical features of the four ML algorithms utilized in this study:
 Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) model: It is based on the lin-
ear regression, to find the correlation between two variables
(one input x and one output y), under this form: y = ax + b
where ‘‘b‘‘ is the intercept and ‘‘a” is the slope of the line. Sim-
ilarly, if there are more than one input and output variable, we
name it Multiple Linear Regression [23].
 Random Forest Regression (RFR) model: This prediction
methodology addresses prediction problems based on the aver-
age of a large number of distinct trees;RFR uses the Bootstrap
resampling technic to build a decision tree model for each set
Fig. 1. Illustration of the normalization input parameters.
860
Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866
of samples. During modeling, each tree randomly selects fea-
tures to divide the attributes of the internal nodes, thus forming
a forest. The result of the final output is the result of the com-
plete decision tree. For the regression algorithm, the final result
of the prediction is the average value of the output results of all
trees [24,25].
 Decision Tree Regression (DTR) model: In a ML system, a DT
algorithm separates the data into sub-groups in a machine
learning (ML) system. When it comes to classification and
regression problems, Decision Trees can be utilized to execute
split tests in their core nodes and forecast the target example
in their leaf nodes [26].
 Support Vector Machine (SVM) model: This model is a super-
vised learning technique used for regression and classification
analysis. The data is represented as a point map, and the solu-
tion is the hyperplane with the greatest potential deviation that
divides this data into two classes. In this interval, each point is
represented by a support vector [27]. For more precision, the
support vector regression (SVR) was used in this study.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Experimental data
The data set used in this study is composed of 100 self-
compacting concrete mixtures [10,28,29]. The values of these data
are shown in Appendix A, with 6 input data such as water absorp-
tion, void ratio, sonic velocity at 1 day, sonic velocity at 7 days,
compressive strength at 1 day, and compressive strength at 7 days.
The output data is compressive strength at 28 days.
3.2. Data pre-processing
In this step, the Min-Max scaler normalization techniques have
been applied only for the input data. However, the normalization
of the output data is not necessary since we have only one output
Yousef El Asri, Mouhcine Ben Aicha, M. Zaher et al.
Fig. 2. Illustration of 5-fold cross validation.
data for prediction (compressive strength at 28 days). This normal-
ization is very useful to facilitate the performance of modeling
since we have measures that have different units, the goal is to
homogenize all the input data between 0 and 1.
The input data normalized is presented in Fig. 1. The calculation
of this normalization is done using the Min-Max scaler of prepro-
cessing from the Scikit-learn library of Python.
3.3. Splitting data
The dataset is split into equal parts for the K- fold cross-
validation [30], this prediction K = 5, where 20 percent of datasets
are used for the testing set and 80 percent of datasets are used for
the training set, repeated five times as shown in Fig. 2. Finally, the
average of all performance metrics is calculated after 5-cross
validation.
3.4. Proposed model
To predict the compressive strength at 28 days, four different
ML algorithms are used: MLR, RFR, DTR and SVR.
After training of each model, for every fold, we calculated the
metrics of the testing set (correlation coefficient (R2), mean abso-
lute error (MAE), mean square error (MSE).
However, in order to determine the most accurate model for
predicting the compressive strength at 28 days of SCC, a compar-
ison between the average metrics of each model was made.
Fig. 3. Proposed organization chart to predict compressive strength at 28 days.
861
Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866
All these steps are summarized in the following diagram
(Fig. 3).
For evaluating and developing ML models, the results of this
study are obtained using Matplotlib, Numpy, Pandas, and Scikit-
learn, which are libraries of open-source Python.
4. Results and discussion
Admixtures and other modifiers are commonly used to decrease
the bleeding and segregation of self-compacting concrete. Higher
air quantities may be necessary in this case, as well as to improve
the mixture’s resilience to freezing and thawing.
In this study, 100 mixtures were designed based on the recom-
mendations of EFNARC and AFGC [31,32]. An air entraining mix-
ture (AEA) was added in several percentages, namely in 0.05 to
1% of the weight of cement, with a step of 0.05%.
Experimental studies have been performed to examine the
mechanical and intrinsic characteristics of SCC, such as compres-
sive strength (at 1, 7, and 28 days), sonic velocity (at 1 and 7 days),
water absorption, and void ratio of the SCC using different air
content.
In this part of this work, for the prediction of the compressive
strength at 28 days of SCC, the algorithms proposed previously
were applied on the experimental data (Appendix A). In this
regard, Table 1 summarizes the number of datasets, their mean
values as well as the standard deviation, minimum and maximum
values used in this study.
Yousef El Asri, Mouhcine Ben Aicha, M. Zaher et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866

Table 1
Data statistics: count, mean, std, min and max.

Input Output
Water Void Sonic velocity at Sonic velocity at Compressive strength at Compressive strength at Compressive strength at
absorption (%) ratio (%) 1 day (m/s) 7 days (m/s) 1 day (MPa) 7 days (MPa) 28 days(MPa)
Count 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Mean 7.09 13.50 3762.82 4089.11 24.23 36.40 42.31
Std 3.64 6.63 373.62 420.02 10.77 13.07 12.40
Min 1.74 3.60 3286 3562 12.20 20.30 26.20
Max 12.72 24.35 4444 4790 44.00 57.00 65.60

Table 2
Results of test metrics of the variousML algorithmsto predictthe compressive strength at 28 days.

Models K-fold R2 MAE MSE Models K-fold R2 MAE MSE

MLR 1 0.99583 0.62352 0.63196 DTR 1 0.99868 0.35400 0.20017
2 0.99817 0.40383 0.26941 2 0.99812 0.44300 0.27753
3 0.99664 0.58090 0.51480 3 0.99833 0.39750 0.25562
4 0.98931 0.67035 0.66842 4 0.98714 0.68750 0.80413
5 0.99770 0.51660 0.39155 5 0.99869 0.33600 0.22325
Mean 0.99553 0.55904 0.49523 Mean 0.99619 0.44360 0.35214
RFR 1 0.99852 0.32422 0.22449 SVR 1 0,99124 0,99351 1,32748
2 0.99903 0.24079 0.14251 2 0,99629 0,57437 0,54643
3 0.99810 0.35061 0.29177 3 0,99350 0,91354 0,99557
4 0.99528 0.45079 0.29495 4 0,97860 0,88746 1.33783
5 0.99942 0.21796 0.09850 5 0,99519 0,72336 0,82019
Mean 0.99807 0.31687 0.21045 Mean 0,99096 0,81845 1,00550

Fig. 4. Mean of MAE, MSE and R2 for each model.

4.1. Prediction results
According to the ML algorithms discussed previously (MLR, RFR,
DTR and SVR), the compressive strength of SCC (at 28 days) can be
predicted using the results shown in Table 2.
The test metrics reported in Table 2 were obtained after divid-
ing our data into k fold cross-validation, and modeling each fold
using the 4 models for training and testing.
Table 2 shows that the mean R2 value and that of each fold and
model exceed 0.99, which means that the four models predict com-
pressive strength with high performance.
To choose the best-performing model, compared to the other
three models, the histogram of Fig. 4 clearly shows that the best
performing model is RFR (with a large value of mean R2 and the
lowest errors), the second is DTR followed by MLR and lastly we
find the SVR model.
Therefore, the model which will be chosen for the prediction of
compressive strength at 28 days of SCC is Random Forest Regres-
sion algorithm RFR (Fig. 5). This Figure analyzes the statistical coef-
ficients mentioned previously. Thus, the comparison between the
true experimental and the predicted values of the adopted algo-
rithm model is presented in Fig. 6. The two graphs show that the
predicted results and the experimental results are almost identical
with a higher correlation coefficient R2 = 0.9997 and minimal error
with MAE = 0.134 MPa and MSE = 0.041, which means that the
model is very efficient.

862
Yousef El Asri, Mouhcine Ben Aicha, M. Zaher et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866

Fig. 5. MAE, MSE and R2 of experimental and predicted compressive strength.

Fig. 6. Visualization of experimental and predicted values of compressive strength.

5. Conclusion strength at 28 days) as a function of intrinsic parameters (water

In this study, four different machine learning algorithms were
used to determine their ability to predict the compressive strength
of self-compacting concrete at 28 days. These algorithms included
Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), Random Forest Regression (RFR),
Decision Tree Regression (DTR), and Support Vector Regression
(SVR). Following that, using statistical coefficients such as regres-
sion coefficient R2, Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Mean Square
Error (MSE) between predicted and experimental output, the work
is focused on determining the best model among those used for the
prediction of the mechanical response at long-term (compressive
absorption and void ratio) and mechanical proprieties at a young
age (compressive strength and sonic velocity at 1 and 7 days).
Given the observed results, the RFR model is the most efficient
machine learning model for predicting the compressive strength of
SCC. In addition, the other three models also give good results with
great performances, classified respectively in this study DTR, MLR,
and the SVR model.
Machine learning approaches can be used to properly anticipate
the mechanical behavior of SCC. Unlike typical prediction methods,
the model discovered does not require a precise equation. Addi-
tionally, this model is capable of retraining with fresh data, which

863
Yousef El Asri, Mouhcine Ben Aicha, M. Zaher et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866

distinguishes it from other models in terms of its capacity to learn Software, Visualization, Investigation. Hafidi Alaoui Adil: Visual-
from new data. ization, Supervision, Validation.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Declaration of Competing Interest

El Asri Yousef: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
Writing – original draft. Ben Aicha Mouhcine: Data curation, Writ- cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
ing – review & editing, Investigation, Validation. Zaher Mounir: to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Experimental data, results input and output parameters

Samples Input Output

Water Void Sonic velocity Sonic velocity Compressive Compressive Compressive
absorption ratio at 1 day (m/s) at 7 days (m/s) strength at 1 day strength at 7 days strength at 28 days
(%) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 1.74 3.6 4432 4776 42 55 63.4
2 1.76 3.7 4438 4781 43 56 64.2
3 1.78 3.9 4440 4784 44 57 65.6
4 1.77 3.7 4442 4787 44 57 65
5 1.75 3.6 4444 4790 43 56 64.6
6 2.11 4.3 4230 4532 40 53 60
7 2.13 4.4 4232 4535 40 53 61
8 2.15 4.6 4234 4538 41 54 62
9 2.12 4.35 4236 4533 40 53 60.5
10 2.14 4.5 4238 4536 40 53.5 61.5
11 3.24 6.12 4199 4585 37 52 55.15
12 3.25 6.15 4202 4588 37 52 56
13 3.27 6.18 4204 4591 38 53 56.2
14 3.29 6.21 4206 4594 38 53 56.3
15 3.31 6.24 4208 4597 37 54 56.4
16 3.56 7.06 4185 4563 35 51 54
17 3.58 7.1 4187 4565 35 51 54.2
18 3.6 7.13 4189 4567 36 51.5 54.3
19 3.62 7.16 4191 4569 36 51.8 54.4
20 3.64 7.19 4193 4571 35 52 54.5
21 3.86 7.88 4167 4558 34 50 53
22 3.87 7.9 4170 4560 34 50 53
23 3.88 7.91 4173 4563 34.5 50.5 53.5
24 3.89 7.92 4176 4566 35 51 54
25 3.9 7.93 4179 4569 35.2 51.4 55
26 3.9 8.12 4134 4548 33 49 52
27 3.92 8.17 4136 4550 33.2 49.4 52.4
28 3.94 8.2 4138 4553 33.4 49.5 52.6
29 3.96 8.23 4140 4556 33.6 49.6 52.9
30 3.98 8.26 4142 4559 33.8 49.8 53
31 4.07 8.54 4103 4539 32 48 51
32 4.1 8.57 4105 4542 32 48.2 51.2
33 4.12 8.6 4107 4544 32.5 48.5 51.5
34 4.14 8.63 4109 4546 33 48.8 51.8
35 4.16 8.66 4111 4548 33.5 49.1 52.1
36 4.34 9.1 3943 4366 30 44 50
37 4.36 9.12 3946 4369 30.3 44.5 50.3
38 4.38 9.15 3949 4372 30.5 45 50.5
39 4.4 9.18 3952 4375 30.7 45.5 50.7
40 4.42 9.2 3955 4378 30.9 46 50.9
41 4.52 9.61 3855 4156 28 40 48
42 4.55 9.63 3857 4158 28.4 41 48.4
43 4.57 9.66 3859 4160 28.8 42 49
44 4.59 9.69 3861 4162 29.2 43 49.6
45 4.61 9.72 3863 4164 29.6 44 50.2

864
Yousef El Asri, Mouhcine Ben Aicha, M. Zaher et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866

Experimental data, results input and output parameters (continued)

Samples Input Output

Water Void Sonic velocity Sonic velocity Compressive Compressive Compressive
absorption ratio at 1 day (m/s) at 7 days (m/s) strength at 1 day strength at 7 days strength at 28 days
(%) (%) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
46 6.33 11.2 3688 4110 25 35 42
47 6.35 11.24 3693 4113 25.5 35.5 43
48 6.38 11.28 3695 4116 26 36 44
49 6.41 11.32 3697 4119 26.5 36.5 45
50 6.44 11.36 3699 4122 27 37 46
51 7.02 12.43 3583 3832 20.3 31 38
52 7.12 12.46 3585 3835 20.33 31.5 38.6
53 7.14 12.48 3588 3838 20.36 32 39
54 7.16 12.5 3591 3841 20.39 32.5 39.4
55 7.18 12.52 3594 3844 20.42 33 39.8
56 7.88 14.6 3544 3802 16.6 27 34
57 7.9 14.64 3546 3808 16.8 27.5 35
58 7.93 14.68 3549 3813 16.9 28 35.5
59 7.96 14.72 3552 3818 17 28.5 36
60 7.99 14.76 3555 3823 17.1 29 36.5
61 9.12 17.1 3524 3786 14.1 24.6 31
62 9.16 17.15 3528 3788 14.14 24.64 31.5
63 9.2 17.19 3530 3790 14.18 24.68 32
64 9.24 17.23 3532 3792 14.22 24.72 32.5
65 9.28 17.27 3534 3794 14.26 24.76 33
66 9.88 18.6 3488 3742 13.6 24.2 30.5
67 9.92 18.64 3490 3744 13.65 24.4 30.6
68 9.95 18.68 3493 3746 13.7 24.6 30.7
69 9.98 18.72 3496 3748 13.75 24.8 30.8
70 10.01 18.76 3499 3750 13.8 25 30.9
71 10.08 19.2 3422 3704 13.2 23.4 30.1
72 10.12 19.23 3425 3708 13.5 23.5 30.2
73 10.15 19.25 3428 3711 13.8 23.8 30.3
74 10.18 19.27 3431 3714 14.1 24.1 30.4
75 10.21 19.29 3434 3717 14.4 24.4 30.5
76 11 19.8 3388 3688 13 23.1 29.4
77 11.06 19.83 3390 3690 13.1 23.1 29.5
78 11.1 19.86 3392 3693 13.1 23.2 29.8
79 11.14 19.89 3394 3696 13.12 23.3 30.1
80 11.18 19.92 3396 3699 13.14 23.4 30.4
81 11.5 21.4 3364 3624 12.88 22.4 29
82 11.55 21.44 3366 3626 12.9 22.5 29
83 11.6 21.47 3368 3628 12.92 22.7 29.2
84 11.65 21.5 3370 3630 12.94 22.9 29.4
85 11.7 21.53 3372 3632 12.96 23.1 29.6
86 11.8 22.2 3323 3605 12.65 21.6 28.4
87 11.83 22.25 3325 3607 12.68 21.7 28.5
88 11.85 22.28 3327 3609 12.7 21.75 28.55
89 11.87 22.31 3329 3611 12.72 21.8 28.6
90 11.89 22.34 3331 3613 12.74 21.85 28.65
91 12.2 23.4 3302 3592 12.53 21.4 27.8
92 12.24 23.6 3304 3595 12.55 21.43 27.83
93 12.26 23.7 3306 3597 12.58 21.45 27.85
94 12.3 23.9 3310 3601 12.64 21.49 27.89
95 12.47 24.05 3294 3588 12.4 20.7 26.7
96 12.5 24.08 3296 3590 12.42 20.8 26.8
97 12.53 24.15 3298 3593 12.45 20.85 26.9
98 12.66 24.28 3286 3562 12.2 20.3 26.2
99 12.68 24.32 3288 3564 12.24 20.4 26.25
100 12.72 24.35 3290 3566 12.26 20.5 26.3

865
Yousef El Asri, Mouhcine Ben Aicha, M. Zaher et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 859–866

References [17] T. Erdik, Discussion on ‘‘Prediction of compressive strength of concrete

containing fly ash using artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic” [Comput.
Mater. Sci. 41 (2008) 305], Comput. Mater. Sci. 44 (3) (2009) 1022, https://doi.
[1] J. Murata, Flow and deformation of fresh concrete, Matériaux Constr. 17 (2)
org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2008.07.031.
(1984) 117–129, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02473663.
[18] H. Mashhadban, S.S. Kutanaei, M.A. Sayarinejad, Prediction and modeling of
[2] N. Roussel, A. Lemaître, R.J. Flatt, P. Coussot, Steady state flow of cement
mechanical properties in fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete using
suspensions: A micromechanical state of the art, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (1) (2010)
particle swarm optimization algorithm and artificial neural network, Constr.
77–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.08.026.
Build. Mater. 119 (2016) 277–287, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[3] C. Hu, F. de Larrard, The rheology of fresh high-performance concrete, Cem.
j.conbuildmat.2016.05.034.
Concr. Res. 26 (2) (1996) 283–294, https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(95)
[19] O. Belalia Douma, B. Boukhatem, M. Ghrici, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Prediction of
00213-8.
properties of self-compacting concrete containing fly ash using artificial neural
[4] I. Flatt, R.J., Schober, Superplasticizers and the rheology of concrete, in: N.
network, Neural Comput. Appl. 28 (S1) (2017) 707–718, https://doi.org/
Roussel (Ed.), Underst. Rheol. Concr., Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and
10.1007/s00521-016-2368-7.
Structural Engineering, 2012, pp. 144–208.
[20] M. Benaicha, O. Jalbaud, A. Hafidi Alaoui, Y. Burtschell, Porosity effects on
[5] K.E. Alyamaç, R. Ince, A preliminary concrete mix design for SCC with marble
rheological and mechanical behavior of self-compacting concrete, J. Build. Eng.
powders, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (3) (2009) 1201–1210, https://doi.org/
48 (2022) 103964, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103964.
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.08.012.
[21] T.M. Mitchell, Machine Learning, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
[6] P. Dinakar, K.P. Sethy, U.C. Sahoo, Design of self-compacting concrete with
[22] Y. Li, Deep Reinforcement Learning, (2018).
ground granulated blast furnace slag, Mater. Des. 43 (2013) 161–169, https://
[23] F. Khademi, M. Akbari, S.M. Jamal, M. Nikoo, Multiple linear regression,
doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.06.049.
artificial neural network, and fuzzy logic prediction of 28 days compressive
[7] L.D. Schwartzentruber, R. Le Roy, J. Cordin, Rheological behaviour of fresh
strength of concrete, Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 11 (1) (2017) 90–99, https://doi.
cement pastes formulated from a Self Compacting Concrete (SCC), Cem. Concr.
org/10.1007/s11709-016-0363-9.
Res. 36 (7) (2006) 1203–1213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[24] H.-V. Mai, T.-A. Nguyen, H.-B. Ly, V.Q. Tran, J. Zhang, Prediction compressive
cemconres.2004.10.036.
strength of concrete containing GGBFS using random forest model, Adv. Civ.
[8] M. Bartos, Sonebi, Tamimi, Workability and Rheology of Fresh Concrete:
Eng. 2021 (2021) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6671448.
Compendium of Tests, 2002.
[25] L. Wang, T. Zeng, Y. Tao, X. Wu, H. Chen, R. Weerasinghe, C. Fang, Research on
[9] M. Benaicha, A. Belcaid, A.H. Alaoui, O. Jalbaud, Y. Burtschell, Rheological
prediction of concrete frost resistance based on random forest, E3S Web Conf.
characterization of self-compacting concrete: New recommendation, Struct.
237 (2021) 03033, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202123703033.
Concr. 20 (5) (2019) 1695–1701, https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900154.
[26] A. Ahmad, F. Farooq, P. Niewiadomski, K. Ostrowski, A. Akbar, F. Aslam, R.
[10] M. Benaicha, X. Roguiez, O. Jalbaud, Y. Burtschell, A.H. Alaoui, Influence of
Alyousef, Prediction of compressive strength of fly ash based concrete using
silica fume and viscosity modifying agent on the mechanical and rheological
individual and ensemble algorithm, Materials (Basel). 14 (2021) 794, https://
behavior of self compacting concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 103–110,
doi.org/10.3390/ma14040794.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.061.
[27] A.M. Abd, S.M. Abd, Modelling the strength of lightweight foamed concrete
[11] M. Benaicha, X. Roguiez, O. Jalbaud, Y. Burtschell, A.H. Alaoui, New approach to
using support vector machine (SVM), Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 6 (2017) 8–15,
determine the plastic viscosity of self-compacting concrete, Front. Struct. Civ.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2016.11.002.
Eng. 10 (2) (2016) 198–208, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-015-0327-5.
[28] M. Benaicha, A. Belcaid, A.H. Alaoui, O. Jalbaud, Y. Burtschell, Effects of
[12] M. Benaicha, O. Jalbaud, A. Hafidi Alaoui, Y. Burtschell, Marsh cone coupled to a
limestone filler and silica fume on rheology and strength of self-compacting
plexiglas horizontal channel: Rheological characterization of cement grout,
concrete, Struct. Concr. 20 (5) (2019) 1702–1709, https://doi.org/
Flow Meas. Instrum. 45 (2015) 126–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1002/suco.201900150.
flowmeasinst.2015.06.004.
[29] M. Benaicha, Y. Burtschell, A.H. Alaoui, K. Elharrouni, Theoretical calculation of
[13] M. Ben Aicha, The superplasticizer effect on the rheological and mechanical
self-compacting concrete plastic viscosity, Struct. Concr. 18 (5) (2017) 710–
properties of self-compacting concrete, in: New Mater. Civ. Eng., Elsevier,
719, https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600064.
2020, pp. 315–331, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818961-0.00008-9.
[30] T. Fushiki, Estimation of prediction error by using K-fold cross-validation, Stat.
[14] W.P.S. Dias, S.P. Pooliyadda, Neural networks for predicting properties of
Comput. 21 (2) (2011) 137–146, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-009-9153-8.
concretes with admixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (7) (2001) 371–379,
[31] François CUSSIGH, Recommandations pour l’emploi des bétons autoplaçants,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(01)00006-X.
2008.
[15] S.-C. Lee, Prediction of concrete strength using artificial neural networks, Eng.
[32] EFNARC, Specification and Guidelines for Self-Compacting Concrete, 2002.
Struct. 25 (7) (2003) 849–857, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00004-X.
[16] G. Trtnik, F. Kavčič, G. Turk, Prediction of concrete strength using ultrasonic
pulse velocity and artificial neural networks, Ultrasonics 49 (1) (2009) 53–60,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2008.05.001.

866