Cargando…

A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete

Several types of research currently use machine learning (ML) methods to estimate the mechanical characteristics of concrete. This study aimed to compare the capacities of four ML methods: eXtreme gradient boosting (XG Boost), gradient boosting (GB), Cat boosting (CB), and extra trees regressor (ETR...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de-Prado-Gil, Jesús, Palencia, Covadonga, Jagadesh, P., Martínez-García, Rebeca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9229901/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35744223
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15124164
_version_ 1784734890278780928
author de-Prado-Gil, Jesús
Palencia, Covadonga
Jagadesh, P.
Martínez-García, Rebeca
author_facet de-Prado-Gil, Jesús
Palencia, Covadonga
Jagadesh, P.
Martínez-García, Rebeca
author_sort de-Prado-Gil, Jesús
collection PubMed
description Several types of research currently use machine learning (ML) methods to estimate the mechanical characteristics of concrete. This study aimed to compare the capacities of four ML methods: eXtreme gradient boosting (XG Boost), gradient boosting (GB), Cat boosting (CB), and extra trees regressor (ETR), to predict the splitting tensile strength of 28-day-old self-compacting concrete (SCC) made from recycled aggregates (RA), using data obtained from the literature. A database of 381 samples from literature published in scientific journals was used to develop the models. The samples were randomly divided into three sets: training, validation, and test, with each having 267 (70%), 57 (15%), and 57 (15%) samples, respectively. The coefficient of determination (R(2)), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) metrics were used to evaluate the models. For the training data set, the results showed that all four models could predict the splitting tensile strength of SCC made with RA because the R(2) values for each model had significance higher than 0.75. XG Boost was the model with the best performance, showing the highest R(2) value of R(2) = 0.8423, as well as the lowest values of RMSE (=0.0581) and MAE (=0.0443), when compared with the GB, CB, and ETR models. Therefore, XG Boost was considered the best model for predicting the splitting tensile strength of 28-day-old SCC made with RA. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the variable contributing the most to the split tensile strength of this material after 28 days was cement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9229901
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92299012022-06-25 A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete de-Prado-Gil, Jesús Palencia, Covadonga Jagadesh, P. Martínez-García, Rebeca Materials (Basel) Article Several types of research currently use machine learning (ML) methods to estimate the mechanical characteristics of concrete. This study aimed to compare the capacities of four ML methods: eXtreme gradient boosting (XG Boost), gradient boosting (GB), Cat boosting (CB), and extra trees regressor (ETR), to predict the splitting tensile strength of 28-day-old self-compacting concrete (SCC) made from recycled aggregates (RA), using data obtained from the literature. A database of 381 samples from literature published in scientific journals was used to develop the models. The samples were randomly divided into three sets: training, validation, and test, with each having 267 (70%), 57 (15%), and 57 (15%) samples, respectively. The coefficient of determination (R(2)), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) metrics were used to evaluate the models. For the training data set, the results showed that all four models could predict the splitting tensile strength of SCC made with RA because the R(2) values for each model had significance higher than 0.75. XG Boost was the model with the best performance, showing the highest R(2) value of R(2) = 0.8423, as well as the lowest values of RMSE (=0.0581) and MAE (=0.0443), when compared with the GB, CB, and ETR models. Therefore, XG Boost was considered the best model for predicting the splitting tensile strength of 28-day-old SCC made with RA. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the variable contributing the most to the split tensile strength of this material after 28 days was cement. MDPI 2022-06-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9229901/ /pubmed/35744223 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15124164 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
de-Prado-Gil, Jesús
Palencia, Covadonga
Jagadesh, P.
Martínez-García, Rebeca
A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete
title A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete
title_full A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete
title_fullStr A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete
title_short A Comparison of Machine Learning Tools That Model the Splitting Tensile Strength of Self-Compacting Recycled Aggregate Concrete
title_sort comparison of machine learning tools that model the splitting tensile strength of self-compacting recycled aggregate concrete
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9229901/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35744223
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15124164
work_keys_str_mv AT depradogiljesus acomparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete
AT palenciacovadonga acomparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete
AT jagadeshp acomparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete
AT martinezgarciarebeca acomparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete
AT depradogiljesus comparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete
AT palenciacovadonga comparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete
AT jagadeshp comparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete
AT martinezgarciarebeca comparisonofmachinelearningtoolsthatmodelthesplittingtensilestrengthofselfcompactingrecycledaggregateconcrete