Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Intelligent Models for Prediction of Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Pervious Concrete Hybridized with Agro-Industrial and Construction-Demolition Wastes Cover

Intelligent Models for Prediction of Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Pervious Concrete Hybridized with Agro-Industrial and Construction-Demolition Wastes

Open Access
|Sep 2024

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Flowchart showing the experimentation and development of soft computing models.
Flowchart showing the experimentation and development of soft computing models.

Figure 2:

Particle size distribution of binder materials and aggregates.
Particle size distribution of binder materials and aggregates.

Figure 3:

Preparation, air-curing, and testing sequence of geopolymer pervious concrete specimens.
Preparation, air-curing, and testing sequence of geopolymer pervious concrete specimens.

Figure 4:

Model architecture flow diagram of the soft computing adopted in the current investigation.
Model architecture flow diagram of the soft computing adopted in the current investigation.

Figure 5:

Average compressive strength and hydraulic conductivity of trial pervious GPC mixes.
Average compressive strength and hydraulic conductivity of trial pervious GPC mixes.

Figure 6: (a)

Corelation matrix showing the affiliation of individual parameters with the other parameters.
Corelation matrix showing the affiliation of individual parameters with the other parameters.

Figure 6: (b)

Pearson's correlation coefficients between the parameters.
Pearson's correlation coefficients between the parameters.

Figure 7:

Actual vs predicted compressive strength results from ML models.
Actual vs predicted compressive strength results from ML models.

Figure 8:

Results of RMSE and R2 values of developed ML models.
Results of RMSE and R2 values of developed ML models.

Figure 9: (a)

Results showing the errors in predicted vs actual values of compressive strength from the testing dataset.
Results showing the errors in predicted vs actual values of compressive strength from the testing dataset.

Figure 9: (b)

Results showing the feature score of the ML models for compressive strength.
Results showing the feature score of the ML models for compressive strength.

Figure 10:

Results of predicted values and actual values from the ensemble Voting Regressor ML model.
Results of predicted values and actual values from the ensemble Voting Regressor ML model.

Unit = kg per cubic meterUnit = MPa

Mix IDGGBSAWAAASNCARCAFACS
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.732.2
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.731.0
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.731.6
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.732.9
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.731.2
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.730.4
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.734.2
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.731.1
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.729.9
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.734.0
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.732.8
M-0-02900143.581881.30199.731.0
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.732.7
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.727.5
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.730.3
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.731.9
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.732.8
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.731.2
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.727.5
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.727.4
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.730.0
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.730.5
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.728.1
M-0-252900143.581411.03444.01199.730.6
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.722.6
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.725.8
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.726.2
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.728.0
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.724.4
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.728.7
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.724.9
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.725.0
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.726.8
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.727.9
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.724.3
M-0-502900143.58940.68888.03199.723.2
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.723.8
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.723.2
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.721.8
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.722.8
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.722.1
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.722.5
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.720.5
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.723.2
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.721.1
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.720.8
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.723.0
M-0-752900143.58470.341332.05199.721.4
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.719.5
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.718.6
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.718.9
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.718.3
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.717.5
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.716.2
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.716.6
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.715.0
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.719.1
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.720.0
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.718.4
M-0-1002900143.5801776.07199.718.0
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.332.0
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.336.2
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.331.1
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.336.0
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.335.8
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.336.1
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.333.2
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.339.0
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.334.0
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.335.8
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.335.3
M-5-0275.514.5143.581878.130199.336.1
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.936.2
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.937.5
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.935.4
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.938.0
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.937.4
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.934.0
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.932.8
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.939.6
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.938.9
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.937.0
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.938.4
M-10-026129143.581874.890198.939.8
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.630.8
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.633.0
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.629.5
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.631.0
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.631.0
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.630.9
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.626.4
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.631.8
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.630.9
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.629.8
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.629.8
M-15-0246.543.5143.581871.650198.627.3
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.326.1
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.328.9
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.328.6
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.324.4
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.327.9
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.328.9
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.326.4
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.330.7
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.324.8
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.322.8
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.327.6
M-20-023258143.581868.420198.325.0
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.326.5
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.324.4
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.326.4
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.326.9
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.327.2
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.328.9
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.328.6
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.326.8
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.326.1
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.327.3
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.326.9
M-5-50275.514.5143.58939.065886.505199.327.7
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.929.3
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.930.4
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.929.1
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.931.4
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.930.8
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.929.5
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.931.4
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.931.2
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.928.3
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.929.6
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.930.2
M-10-5026129143.58937.45884.98198.930.2
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.624.9
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.624.7
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.624.9
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.624.8
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.625.9
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.625.3
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.625.3
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.624.9
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.625.3
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.625.0
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.626.2
M-15-50246.543.5143.58935.83883.45198.625.0
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.320.7
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.319.9
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.319.7
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.320.5
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.319.9
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.319.7
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.320.4
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.319.8
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.320.0
M-20-5023258143.58934.21881.92198.320.4

Expressive statistics of the dependent and independent variables_

VariableUnitCountMeanstd. devMinimum25%50%75%Maximum
GGBSkg156268.1621.56232.00246.5275.5290.0290.0
AWAkg15621.8521.560.00.0014.543.558.0
AASkg156143.59-143.58143.6143.6143.6143.58
NCAkg1561230.18601.670.00935.8940.71871.71881.3
RCAkg156610.13569.480.000.00881.9886.51776.1
FA (WFS)kg156199.140.5321198.30198.6199.3199.7199.7
CSMPa15627.735.54414.9624.3727.7931.239.81

Results on Machine Learning Models Applied on Input Data with the Performance Metrics

Statistical Parameters of ML ModelsMultiple Linear RegressionXGBoost TunedAdaBoost TunedGradient Boost RegressorVoting Regressor
RMSE1.641.631.591.641.52
MAE1.281.301.261.301.21
MSE2.702.702.512.702.32
R2 Value0.830.910.860.880.90
CVmean−0.14−0.74−0.91−0.79−0.11

Mix Proportion Details for 1 m3 Geopolymer Pervious Concrete Preparations in kg_

Mix IDGGBSAWANaOHLSSWaterASNCARCAFA
M-0-029006.58344.20792.791143.581881.30199.7
M-0-2529006.58344.20792.791143.581411.03444.01199.7
M-0-5029006.58344.20792.791143.58940.68888.03199.7
M-0-7529006.58344.20792.791143.58470.341332.05199.7
M-0-10029006.58344.20792.791143.5801776.07199.7
M-5-0275.514.56.58344.20792.791143.581878.130199.3
M-10-0261296.58344.20792.791143.581874.890198.9
M-15-0246.543.56.58344.20792.791143.581871.650198.6
M-20-0232586.58344.20792.791143.581868.420198.3
M-5-50275.514.56.58344.20792.791143.58939.065886.505199.3
M-10-50261296.58344.20792.791143.58937.45884.98198.9
M-15-50246.543.56.58344.20792.791143.58935.83883.45198.6
M-20-50232586.58344.20792.791143.58934.21881.92198.3

Input Data after Feature Standardization_

GGB SAWAAASNCARCAFA
1.02−1.02-0.29−0.281.06
0.32−0.32-−0.510.510.28
−1.761.76-1.06−1.07−1.66
−0.370.37-1.07−1.07−0.49
−0.3720.37-−0.510.51−0.49

Thematic Categorization of Selected Soft Computing Models Used in AAC/GPC Research_

Ref.ModelKey FindingsAttributesFuture Scopes
[7]ANNEffectively predicted the strength variation due to molar concentration changes in activator solutions with R2 values over 0.96Predicting strength with the use of 70% results for training and 30% sample results for testingFurther refine ANN models to enhance predictive accuracy
[8]GEPDeveloped numerical models to predict GGBS-based GPC strength, demonstrating high accuracy and validation with R2 values ranging from 0.97 to 0.99Compressive strength prediction of GGBS-based GPC with the use of 351 samplesExpand GEP models to include more variables influencing GPC properties
[9]GEPPredict the compressive strength of bacteria-incorporated GPC, showing minimal error against experimental dataModeling compressive strength of bacteria-incorporated GPCExplore GEP's application in other GPC types with different admixtures
[10]RFR and GEPRFR and GEP were applied to develop empirical models predicting fly-ash GPC strength, where RFR showed better performance through statistical error checksStrength prediction of GPC using advanced soft computing methods developed through 298 datasetsCompare these models against other ML techniques for broader applicability
[11]AI toolsAI techniques like GP, RVM, and GPR showed high accuracies in predicting GPC strength with R2 values in the range of 0.93–0.99AI-assisted mix-design tool for GPCTest these AI models in real-world mix-design scenarios for validation
[12]GEPGEP provided an empirical equation for GPC strength prediction using FA, showing good model accuracy and generalization capabilityEstimating GPC compressive strength using GEP developed through 298 datasetsEnhance the GEP model by incorporating more diverse datasets
[13]ANN, RSM, and GEPComparative analysis of ANN, RSM, and GEP showed RSM and ANN outperformed GEP in accuracy for predicting the strength of engineered GP composite (EGC)Predictive modeling of EGC compressive strength. The RSM showed 96% accuracy, whereas the ANN had 93%Improve GEP models or explore hybrid approaches for better prediction in EGC
[14]MLEnsembled ML techniques, particularly AdaBoost and random forest, outperformed individual methods in predicting GPC strength, and the R2 values of 0.90 for ensemble methods were obtained.Applying ML for strength prediction of GP composites; AdaBoost and random forest showed superior predictionsFurther explore the potential of ensembling techniques in predictive accuracy improvement
[15]ANN, M5P-Tree, LR, and MLRANN model excelled in predicting the compressive strength of GGBS/FA-based GPC, showcasing its potential over other modelsCompressive strength prediction for GPCcompositesdeveloped through 220 datasetsEnhance model reliability with broader datasets and explore real-time prediction capabilities
[16]ANNANN models showed promise in predicting strength characteristics of AAC masonry blocks, with significant accuracy in training and validation phasesStrength prediction for alkali-activated masonry blocks developed through 108 datasetsValidate ANN models in diverse AAC formulations and structural applications
[17]GEPGEP demonstrated high accuracy in predicting the compressive strength of FRGC, supporting its use in optimizing concrete mixes; R2 values in the range of 0.97–0.99 indicating GEP's robust performance and reliabilityPredictive modeling for fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete (FRGC)developed through 393 datasetsApply GEP in broader FRGC applications and investigate other fiber types and contents
[5]ANN, MPR, and SA-LRUtilized ANN and advanced regression techniques for predicting the performance of high-strength GPC, focusing on sustainable and cost-effective solutionsOptimization of high-performance GPC mixes, with the use of 81 sample dataExtend analysis to include long-term performance and durability predictions
[18]NSGA-II and BPNNIntroduced a multi-objective optimization approach using NSGA-II and BPNN for geopolymer mix design, balancing mechanical, environmental, and economic factors; R2 and other statistical tests were used for validationMix design optimization for fly ash-based GPC mixes, with the use of 896 sample dataExpand optimization frameworks to incorporate additional environmental and durability criteria
[19]LR, ANN, and AdaBoostAdaBoost model showcased superior prediction accuracy with the highest R2 value for the compressive strength of FlA-based GPC compared to conventional machine learning modelsEnhancing predictive accuracy for FlA-based GPC strengthInvestigate AdaBoost's application in predicting other relevant concrete properties
[20]SVR and GWOThe study applied SVR combined with GWO to predict the compressive strength of GGBFS-based geopolymer concrete, showing high accuracy and potential for optimization; R2 value for SVR-GWO was 0.95Prediction of compressive strength for GGBFS-based GPC developed through 268 datasetsExplore the integration of GWO with other predictive models for enhanced optimization and prediction
[21]LSTMEmployed LSTM to forecast the compressive strength of FAGC, introducing a novel approach with optimized LSTM parameters for better prediction accuracyCompressive strength prediction in FAGC using LSTM developed using 162 datasetsFurther refine LSTM models and explore their application in real-time monitoring and control of GPC properties
[22]XGB and SVMThe study compared XGB and SVM for predicting the slumpand strength of AAC, finding XGB to perform significantly better with higher R2 values (respective R2 values of 0.94 and 0.97 for slump and strength), providing a robust tool for AAC mix designSlump and compressive strength prediction in AAC with a total of 193 datasetsInvestigate the applicability of XGB in broader contexts of AAC production and other performance parameters
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2024-0020 | Journal eISSN: 2083-831X | Journal ISSN: 0137-6365
Language: English
Page range: 349 - 376
Submitted on: May 7, 2024
Accepted on: Jul 15, 2024
Published on: Sep 26, 2024
Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Shriram Marathe, Anisha P Rodrigues, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.