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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |