fibers
Article
Artificial Neural Networks to Predict the Mechanical Properties
of Natural Fibre-Reinforced Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs)
Chiara Turco *, Marco Francesco Funari






Citation: Turco, C.; Funari, M.F.;
Teixeira, E.; Mateus, R. Artificial
Neural Networks to Predict the
Mechanical Properties of Natural
Fibre-Reinforced Compressed Earth
Blocks (CEBs). Fibers 2021, 9, 78.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fib9120078
Academic Editor: Vincenzo Fiore
Received: 20 October 2021
Accepted: 16 November 2021
Published: 1 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
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/).
Fibers 2021, 9, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/fib9120078
, Elisabete Teixeira and Ricardo Mateus
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal;
marcofrancesco.funari@civil.uminho.pt (M.F.F.); b8416@civil.uminho.pt (E.T.);
ricardomateus@civil.uminho.pt (R.M.)
* Correspondence: id9631@alunos.uminho.pt
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to explore Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) to predict
the compressive and tensile strengths of natural fibre-reinforced Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs).
To this end, a database was created by collecting data from the available literature. Data relating
to 332 specimens (Database 1) were used for the prediction of the compressive strength (ANN1),
and, due to the lack of some information, those relating to 130 specimens (Database 2) were used
for the prediction of the tensile strength (ANN2). The developed tools showed high accuracy, i.e.,
correlation coefficients (R-value) equal to 0.97 for ANN1 and 0.91 for ANN2. Such promising results
prompt their applicability for the design and orientation of experimental campaigns and support
numerical investigations.
Keywords: Compressed Earth Blocks; natural fibres; reinforcement; compressive strength; tensile
strength; Artificial Neural Networks
1. Introduction
Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) are spreading as an innovative construction tech-
nology as they combine the advantages of earthen constructions without neglecting the
sustainability requirements of modern buildings.
CEBs represent the evolution of traditional adobe or rammed earth [1–3]. Their
production process involves a compaction force on the mould (manually operated or using
a hydraulic machine) to obtain a denser and stronger block. Earth is the main component
of the mixture. It guarantees high indoor hygrothermal comfort and a high level of air
quality [4]. Furthermore, the blocks are unfired, which means low embodied carbon and
energy [5–7], and they are entirely recyclable at the end of the life cycle [5,6].
Researchers worldwide are currently facing the problem of overcoming the main
disadvantages of earth-based materials, e.g., durability, dimensional stability, mechanical
strength, etc. To this end, several additives ranging from cement to fibres are commonly
adopted to minimise such issues [7–10]. In particular, natural or synthetic fibres are usually
introduced to (i) reduce excessive swelling and shrinkage phenomena and (ii) improve
blocks’ ductility and fracture resistance [7–9,11–17]. Even though this dual role is widely
accepted in the literature, many doubts remain about fibre type, quantity and the chemical
interaction with the soil. The studies mentioned show that the presence of fibres induces a
beneficial effect on blocks up to a certain threshold. When exceeding that limit, there is a
decline in physical and mechanical properties [18]. Such an overload leads the fibres to
be not distributed homogeneously, overlapping themselves and consequently resulting in
a less compact block. This threshold is obviously not unique but depends on numerous
factors such as the aspect ratio (the ratio between length and diameter), the density of
the fibre, its physical composition and surface roughness. Chemical treatments such as
the alkaline treatment proposed by Vodounon et al. [19] also improve the surface of the
fibres within certain duration limits. What emerges is an enormous variability of the
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/fibers
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 2 of 21

variables involved. Therefore, a complete knowledge of the rules for the mixture design
has not yet been achieved, making fibre-reinforced CEBs with randomly distributed fibres
a challenging topic that needs to be investigated [20].
In broad terms, researchers agree on the effect produced by fibres in bridging mi-
crofractures, behaving similarly to roots in the ground soil [18]. In 2015, Danso et al. [21]
proved that this bridging function is proportional to fibres’ length, i.e., their aspect ratio,
by comparing the response of different blocks reinforced with coconut coir, sugarcane
bagasse and oil palm fibres. In 2016, Aymerich et al. [11] investigated how different lengths
and percentages of hemp fibres influence the fracture resistance and energy absorption
capacity of an earthen material subjected to static and impacted bending load. They demon-
strated that the post-cracking performance is significantly enhanced by increasing fibre
content and length for large displacements, while the mechanism is only marginal for
small displacement.
One can note how the available scientific literature mainly focuses on experimental
analyses to assess the macroscopic mechanical performance of various fibre-reinforced
CEBs [18,19,22–28]. Authors usually investigate the flexural and tensile strengths by three-
point bending and tensile splitting tests, respectively. In general, fibre-reinforced CEBs
demonstrate a more gradual failure than simple units. Such a phenomenon suggests that
the ductility and the fracture resistance of the blocks are improved by introducing fibres.
Still, few attempts have focused on accurately describing the physical interaction between
fibres and matrix. Recently, Danso et al. [29] accomplished a series of experimental tests at
the micro-scale with this purpose. First, the computerised tomography scanning showed
the random distribution of fibres. Second, the optical microscopy and scanning electron
microscopy revealed gaps between fibres and soil matrix, especially in the case of coconut
coir (other fibres used were sugarcane bagasse and oil palm fibres). Further experiments
suggested that these gaps are caused by fibre shrinkage during the drying process and by
the compaction force during the preparation process (result also confirmed from the study
by Taallah and Guettala [23]). However, a complete understanding of the failure has not
yet been achieved. The most widely known issues concern the intrinsic diversity affecting
the raw materials involved in the manufacturing process of the blocks, curing time and
methods, etc. The diverse soils and fibres in nature make each blend practically unique,
and, as a result, their responses are reasonably different. Furthermore, the measured
resistance value depends on the size of samples and test procedures, which revealed poor
standardisation [7].
The literature analysis underlines the effort that the experimental determination of
the mechanical characteristics of these blocks requires. To achieve a reliable and statisti-
cally relevant knowledge of the information sought for the development of each product,
extensive experimental campaigns employing large quantities of resources (e.g., materials,
energy, tools) are needed. Therefore, it is important to use computational tools to predict
some of the characteristics of the blocks. With this purpose, the present study proposes
the use of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), computational systems belonging to the
broader Machine Learning (ML) methods [30]. Their use is widespread in many engineer-
ing research fields [31–46], but not yet in the area of interest. Among the few studies found
that are related to this topic, ANNs were used in 2017 by Ongpeng et al. [47] to optimise
the mixture design of CEBs containing rice straw, and in 2016 by Sitton et al. [34] to obtain
a rapid soil classification for use in CEBs.
Unlike those studies, the primary objective of this research is to generate two ANN
models devoted to predicting the uniaxial compressive strength and tensile splitting
strength of various natural fibre-reinforced CEBs. To enhance the potential of this building
technology, it also aims to initiate a more organic and stimulating discussion on the topic
through the use of advanced computational tools and the creation of a common database.
The methodology adopted consists of the following main steps: (i) data collection,
(ii) modelling of the ANNs, and (iii) performance evaluation of the generated networks. In
particular, the second phase includes three sub-steps: (ii.a) data processing, (ii.b) definition
 topic through the use of advanced computational tools and the creation of a common da-
topic through the use of advanced computational tools and the creation of a common da-
tabase.
tabase.
The methodology adopted consists of the following main steps: (i) data collection, (ii)
The methodology adopted consists of the following main steps: (i) data collection, (ii)
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 modelling of the ANNs, and (iii) performance evaluation of the generated networks. 3 of 21
In
modelling of the ANNs, and (iii) performance evaluation of the generated networks. In
particular, the second phase includes three sub-steps: (ii.a) data processing, (ii.b) defini-
particular, the second phase includes three sub-steps: (ii.a) data processing, (ii.b) defini-
tion of the ANNs architecture, and (ii.c) training of the networks. Each network can be re-
tion of the ANNs architecture, and (ii.c) training of the networks. Each network can be re-
trained several times until attaining an acceptable prediction accuracy. Once the desired
of the ANNs
trained architecture,
several times untiland (ii.c) training
attaining of the networks.
an acceptable Each
prediction networkOnce
accuracy. can bethe
re-trained
desired
model istimes
several obtained, the network
until the
attaining is saved and
an acceptable used with
prediction new, unknown
accuracy. Once the data for the
desired pre-
model
model is obtained, network is saved and used with new, unknown data for the pre-
diction purpose
is obtained, (iv).
the network Figure 1 provides
is saved a
and used graphical
with new,visualisation of
unknown data the proposed work-
diction purpose (iv). Figure 1 provides a graphical visualisation of thefor the prediction
proposed work-
flow.
purpose (iv). Figure 1 provides a graphical visualisation of the proposed workflow.
flow.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic
Schematic representation
representation of
of the
the proposed
proposed workflow.
workflow.
workflow.

This paper
This paper is
is organised
organised as follows.
follows. Section
Section 22 briefly
briefly frames thethe artificial intelligence
intelligence
This paper is organised as
as follows. Section 2 briefly frames
frames the artificial
artificial intelligence
family and
family and summarises
and summarises
summarises the the ANN theory;
ANN theory; Sections 3 and 4 focus on the data collection and
family the ANN theory; Sections
Sections 33 and
and 44 focus
focus on
on the data collection
the data collection and
and
modelling of
of the ANNs; Section
the ANNs;
ANNs; Section 5 discusses
discusses the
the performance
performance of of the
the ANNs.
ANNs. Finally,
Finally, some
some
modelling Section 55 discusses the performance of the ANNs. Finally, some
key conclusions are
conclusions are reported
reported in
in Section
Section 6.
6.
key conclusions are reported in Section 6.
2. Artificial
Artificial Neural
Neural Networks:
Networks: Theoretical
Theoretical Background
Background
2. Artificial Neural Networks: Theoretical Background
In computer science,
science,MLMLisisa asubcategory
subcategoryof of artificial
artificial intelligence
intelligence (Figure
(Figure 2). con-
2). The The
In computer science, ML is a subcategory of artificial intelligence (Figure 2). The con-
concept behind
cept behind MLMLis is
to to traincomputers,
train computers,through
throughexamples,
examples,to to recognise
recognise attributes
attributes [48].
cept behind ML is to train computers, through examples, to recognise attributes [48].
ANNs
ANNs areare supervised
supervisedML MLmodels,
models,generally
generally used
used to predict
to predict a continuous
a continuous output
output as a
as a func-
ANNs
functionareofsupervised
some inputsML models, generally used to predict a continuous output as a func-
(regression).
tion of some inputs (regression).
tion of some inputs (regression).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Computer science subcategories.
subcategories.
Figure 2. Computer science subcategories.
A generic
generic ANN,
ANN, i.e.,
i.e., aa multi-layer
multi-layer perceptron
perceptron network
network [30],
[30], is
is characterised
characterised byby two
two
A generic ANN, i.e., a multi-layer perceptron network [30], is characterised by two
fundamental
fundamental elements,
elements, the
the architecture
architecture and
and the
the learning
learning technique.
technique. The The term
term architecture
architecture
fundamental elements, the architecture and the learning technique. The term architecture
refers
refers to
to the
the main
main structure:
structure: the the input
input layer,
layer, the
the hidden
hidden layer(s),
layer(s), and
and the
the output
output layer,
layer,
refers
where to the main structure: Thethe input layer, the hidden layer(s), and the tooutputoutput
layer,
where neurons
neurons are
are located.
located. The information
information moves
moves from
from the
the input
input layer
layer to the
the output
where
layer inneurons are located.
a feed-forward The information
way [30]. Thus, neurons moves from to
belonging thea layer
input arelayer to the output
connected to the
subsequential layer in only one direction with no cycles or loops; the path is linear.
Figure 3 shows the scheme of a generic network with R input variables and S neurons.
Accordingly, p is the input vector, W is the weight matrix of S × R size, b is the bias vector
of size S, f is the activation function, and a is the output vector of length S.
 layer in a feed-forward way [30]. Thus, neurons belonging to a layer are connected to the
subsequential layer in only one direction with no cycles or loops; the path is linear.
Figure 3 shows the scheme of a generic network with R input variables and S neu-
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 4 of 21
rons. Accordingly, p is the input vector, W is the weight matrix of S × R size, b is the bias
vector of size S, f is the activation function, and a is the output vector of length S.

Figure 3. Scheme ofFigure 3. Scheme

a generic ANNofofaSgeneric ANN
neurons, of S neurons,
adapted adapted by [30].
by [30].

The back-propagation algorithms represent the most popular learning techniques

The back-propagation algorithms represent the most popular learning techniques on
on function approximation problems [30]. These algorithms compare the output with
function approximation problems
the target, sending[30]. These algorithms
the resulting error back compare theweight
to adjust the outputassigned
with thetotar-
each neuron
get, sending the resulting
connection [30,49]. This process is looped until the error is minimisedconnec-
error back to adjust the weight assigned to each neuron within a specific
tion [30,49]. This range
process is looped
in which until the
the target and error
outputisvalues
minimised within
converge. Theaback-propagation
specific range inalgorithms
which the target and output
can only values on
be applied converge.
networksThewithback-propagation algorithms
differentiable activation can only
functions.
The general network n of Figure 3 can
be applied on networks with differentiable activation functions. be expressed by Equation (1), in which W is the
weight matrix applied to the input vector p, and b is the bias
The general network n of Figure 3 can be expressed by Equation (1), in which W is vector.
the weight matrix applied to the input vector p, andnb=isWp the+ bias
b
vector. (1)
𝐧 = 𝐖𝐩 𝐛 (1)
The actual output a depends on the chosen activation function f, or transfer func-
tion [30], which can
The actual output a depends onbethe
either linear
chosen or non-linear.
activation In multi-layer
function neural
f, or transfer networks trained
function
using the back-propagation algorithm, a commonly used activation function is the log-
[30], which can be either linear or non-linear. In multi-layer neural networks trained using
sigmoid function (2):
the back-propagation algorithm, a commonly used activation function 1 is the log-sigmoid
function (2): a = f ( n ) = (2)
1 + e−n
The advantage of this transfer function 1 is that it is differentiable and can take any
inputs, squashing the𝐚outputs
= 𝐟(𝐧)into
= the range
1 e 𝐧 0–1 [30]. One can note that an ANN (2) without
the activation function is simply equivalent to a regression model, which just tries to
The advantage of this transfer
approximate function is
data distribution thata straight
with it is differentiable
line. In many and canatake
cases, anyline is not
straight
inputs, squashingsufficient
the outputs into the range 0–1 [30].
to properly represent the problem. One can note that an ANN without
the activation functionIniscontemporary
simply equivalent to amany
literature, regression
authorsmodel, which
have used MLjust tries simply
models, to ap- based on
datasets, to estimate
proximate data distribution the material
with a straight line.strength
In manyascases,a function of the mixture
a straight line is not[33,36,43,46,50–52],
suffi-
for example. Indeed,
cient to properly represent the problem. similar issues are currently addressed in other fields of material
In contemporary literature, many authors have used ML models, simply based on recycled
science and engineering, such as fibre-reinforced concrete, lightweight concrete,
coarse aggregate concrete, construction and demolition waste concrete, just to name a
datasets, to estimate the material strength as a function of the mixture [33,36,43,46,50–52],
few. These materials have in common the extreme variability of the characteristics of
for example. Indeed, similar issues are currently addressed in other fields of material sci-
the components: fibre type, aggregate dimensions, recycled material provenience, etc.
ence and engineering, suchofas
The virtue ML fibre-reinforced concrete,considering
is that it allows precisely lightweight concrete,
datasets recycled
of several independent
coarse aggregate concrete, construction and demolition waste concrete, just
variables, and the outcomes produced are not affected by the heterogeneity to name a few.
of the features.
These materials have in common the
The computational extremeisvariability
approach based on a of the characteristics
learning phase duringof the com-
which the network is
trained with known experimental results.
ponents: fibre type, aggregate dimensions, recycled material provenience, etc. The virtue
of ML is that it allows ANNs are considering
precisely considered highly effective
datasets in fitting
of several functions, and
independent the literature
variables, and produced
in the past
the outcomes produced two affected
are not decades by demonstrates that a relatively
the heterogeneity simple ANN
of the features. can adapt to any
The compu-
practical problem. However, despite the spreading use of ML algorithms, no applications
tational approach is based on a learning phase during which the network is trained with
for CEBs have been identified. This represents a substantial gap in research as the entire
known experimental results.
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 5 of 21

understanding of the behaviour of Earth-based materials, just like concrete, is hindered by

the heterogeneity of the raw materials on which they are based.

3. Data collection
ML algorithms requires the use of extensive databases to guarantee adequate model
generation. A suitable database must be composed of a set of independent variables (fea-
tures), and the corresponding values of the dependent variables that have to be predicted
(targets). The quality of the initial database affects the predictive ability of the model.
Therefore, data collection and post-processing are the most crucial stages of the whole
process.
In this study, the database was created by collecting data arising from the available
literature. At first, all available information relating to the observations were retained (even
in text form). Then, only those common to all studies were considered. Unfortunately, the
lack of data did not allow a single database to predict both the compressive and tensile
strength. Table 1 qualitatively summarises the features assessed in the research works
considered in the present study.

Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties assessed within the literature works considered.

Fibres
Type of Fibre Water Compressive Tensile Flexural
Study Ref. Dry Density Tensile
Used Absorption Strength Strength Strength
Strength
Coconut coir • • • • •
[53] Sugarcane bagasse • • • • •
Oil palm fibres • • • • •
[22] Banana fibres • • •
[54] Banana fibres • • • •
[55] Pig hair •
[19] Pineapple leaves • • •

Hence, from total data relating to 332 specimens (Database 1) used to predict the
compressive strength, only those relating to 130 specimens (Database 2) have been used to
predict the tensile strength (Table 2).

Table 2. Overview of the two databases 1 .

Database 1 Database 2
Features’ matrix X1 = [332 × 7] X2 = [130 × 5]
Target vector t1 = [332 × 1] t2 = [130 × 1]
1 k , . . . ), vectors are indicated with small
In the notation used: scalars are indicated with small italic letters ( xj,i
bold letters (xkj , . . .), and matrices are indicated with bold capital letters (Xk , . . .). The letter k represents the k-th
database, j represents the j-th feature vector, and i represents the i-th feature of that vector.

3.1. Database 1
Database 1 has been used for the prediction of the compressive strength of fibre-
reinforced CEBs. It is composed of 332 experimental data extracted by six studies: 130 spec-
imens including (separately) coconut coir, sugarcane bagasse, and oil palm fibres [53]; 70
specimens including banana fibres [22,54]; 36 specimens including pig hair fibres [55]; and
96 specimens including treated pineapple fibres [19]. Unfortunately, concerning the data
extracted from the study by Lejano et al. [55], the tensile strength value of the pig hair was
missing. Therefore, to obtain a complete data set, it was assumed to be equal to 99 MPa,
according to Araya-Letelier et al. [56].
content x11 , optimum


The seven adopted independent variables (features) are clay
moisture content
x12 , cement content x13
, fibre content x14 , fibre length x15 , fibre

tensile strength x16 , and specimen’s age x17 . The dependent variable is the compressive
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 6 of 21

strength y1 , measured through the uniaxial compressive strength test. Table 3 provides

the descriptive statistics of this database.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the features of Database 1.

Feature Vectors U.M. Mean St. Dev. Min. Max.

x11 Clay content % 0.23 0.09 0.08 0.35
x12 OMC % 0.20 0.08 0.10 0.31
x13 Cement content % 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.07
x14 Fibre content % 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05
x15 Fibre length mm 42.33 22.01 0.00 100.00
x16 Fibre tensile strength MPa 218.16 227.73 0.00 751.95
x17 Specimen’s age Days 20.96 6.51 7.00 28.00
Target vector
t1 Compressive strength MPa 2.80 1.47 0.33 6.30

Clay plays a key role in the workability and plasticity of the mixture, defining the
quality of the blocks produced. Delgado and Guerriero [57] recommended a minimum
clay content of 5% and a maximum between 10% to 22%. Among soils included in this
database, clay content varies from 8% to 35%.
The OMC (optimum moisture content), obtained by the Proctor test [58], represents
the water needed to achieve the maximum soil compaction and, therefore, the ultimate dry
density [59]. This optimal value is even more important if one considers the presence of
cement, the mineral binder commonly used to stabilise CEBs.
Even though it is usually recommended not to exceed the 5% threshold [19], the
cement percentage ranges from 0% to 7% by weight in this database. According to general
prescriptions [2], cement content increases with clay content. However, it is more effective
with leaner or sandy soil due to chemical interactions occurring with mineral components.
The presence of cement requires slow and constantly wet curing and drying process.
Indeed, the best results in terms of quality of blocks are generally achieved after 28 days.
Blocks included in this database are cured for 7, 14, 21, and 28 days.
Finally, with reinforcement purpose, several fibre types, content (0–5%), length
(0–100 mm), and tensile strength (0–751.95 MPa) are used in CEBs included in this database.
A graphical representation of the relationship between each feature included in
Database 1 and the corresponding compressive strength value is presented in Figure 4.

3.2. Database 2
Database 2 has been used for the prediction of the tensile strength of fibre-reinforced
CEBs. It comprises 130 experimental data collected from the study by Danso et al. [53]
including (separately) coconut coir, sugarcane bagasse, and oil palm fibres.
features are clay content (
x21 ), fibre content x22 , fibre length x22 ,



The five adopted
fibre density
x24 , and fibre tensile strength x25 . The dependent variable is the tensile

strength y2 , measured through the tensile splitting test. Table 4 provides the descriptive
statistics of this second database.
Unlike Database 1, in Database 2, the influence of some variables was not considered
relevant due to the low variability range. For example, among the data available, cement
content was always equal to zero, or the OMC and age were the same for all the specimens
considered. Therefore, those features were removed. Likewise, in both databases, specimen
sizes, water content, gravel, and sand and silt content were also removed.
Fibers 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 7 of 21

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 4. Cont.
 Fibers 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 8 of 21

(g)
Figure 4. Relationship between Figure
each4.ofRelationship
the features ofbetween
Database each
1 (clayofcontent
the features
(a), OMC of(b),
Database 1 (clay (c),
cement content content
fibre (a), OMC (b
content
content (d), fibre length (e), fibre (d),
tensile fibre length
strength (e), and
(f), age (g)) fibrethetensile strengthcompressive
corresponding (f), age (g))strength
and the corresponding compress
values.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the features of Database 2.

3.2. Database 2
Feature Vectors U.M. 2 has
Database Mean St. Dev.
been used for theMin. Max.of the tens
prediction
x21 Clay content %
CEBs. It comprises 0.22 0.08
130 experimental 0.14 0.30
data collected from t
x22 Fibre content % 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
including (separately) coconut coir, sugarcane bagasse, and
x23 Fibre length mm 51.69 22.69 0.00 80.00
x24 Fibre density The kg/m
five 3adopted
658.46features
218.16are clay0.00content (𝐱 ), fibre c
810.00
x25 Fibre tensile strength MPa (𝐱 ),92.00
fibre density and fibre tensile strength
50.58 0.00 (𝐱 ). The dep
152.50
Target vector strength (𝐲 ), measured through the tensile splitting test. Ta
t2 Tensile strength statistics of this second
MPa 0.29 database.
0.03 0.22 0.37

Table 4.between
Figure 5 reports the relationship Descriptive
eachstatistics of the included
of the features features in
of Database
Database22.
and the corresponding tensile strength values.
Feature Vectors U.M. Mea
The histograms reported in Figure 6 show the two distributions of the target values:
𝐱
on the left, uniaxial compressive strength, Clay
and content
on the right, tensile splitting strength. %
One 0.22
can note how the distribution of the𝐱compressiveFibrestrength
content values is skewed slightly on%the 0.01
𝐱
left, while the tensile strength distribution is normal.
Fibre length mm 51.69
𝐱 Fibre density kg/m3 658.4
𝐱 Fibre tensile strength MPa 92.00
Target vector
𝐭 Tensile strength MPa 0.29

Unlike Database 1, in Database 2, the influence of some

relevant due to the low variability range. For example, amo
content was always equal to zero, or the OMC and age were
considered. Therefore, those features were removed. Likew
men sizes, water content, gravel, and sand and silt content
Figure 5 reports the relationship between each of the fe
and the corresponding tensile strength values.
 Fibers 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 9 of 21

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure5.5.Relationship
Figure Relationshipbetween
between each
each of
of the
the features
features of
ofDatabase
Database 22 (clay
(clay content
content (a),
(a), fibre
fibrecontent
content(b),
(b),fibre
fibrelength
length(c),
(c),fibre
fibre
density(d)
density (d)and
andfibre
fibretensile
tensilestrength
strength(e))
(e))and
andthe
thecorresponding
correspondingtensile
tensilestrength
strengthvalues.
values.

Fibers 2021, 9, 78
The histograms reported in Figure 6 show the two distributions of the target values:
on the left, uniaxial compressive strength, and on the right, tensile splitting strength. One
can note how the distribution of the compressive strength values is skewed slightly 10 onofthe
21
left, while the tensile strength distribution is normal.

(a) (b)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Histograms of the target
target values:
values: (a) uniaxial compressive
compressive strength;
strength; (b)
(b) tensile
tensile splitting
splitting strength.
strength.

4. Modelling of the ANNs

In this section, the modelling
modelling strategy
strategy of
of the
the ANNs
ANNs is is presented.
presented. AsAs expressed
expressed in
in the
the
workflow
workflowof ofFigure
Figure1,1,the
thefirst step
first of of
step thethe
second
secondphase consists
phase of data
consists processing.
of data This This
processing. step
includes data data
step includes analysis, scaling,
analysis, and division
scaling, into into
and division the three datasets
the three (training,
datasets validation,
(training, valida-
and testing set). Then, the procedure followed for the definition of the architecture
tion, and testing set). Then, the procedure followed for the definition of the architecture of the
two networks is explained and thoroughly described. Finally, the training
of the two networks is explained and thoroughly described. Finally, the training of the of the networks
is performed.
networks is performed.
4.1. Data Processing
4.1. Data Processing
Data collected and shown in Figures 4–6 are heterogeneous, as they include several
Data collected and shown in Figures 4–6 are heterogeneous, as they include several
units of measure and vary in a different range of values (see Tables 3 and 4). It has already
units of measure and vary in a different range of values (see Tables 3 and 4). It has already
been mentioned in Section 3 that this situation does not limit the application of ML methods;
been mentioned in Section 3 that this situation does not limit the application of ML meth-
instead, it represents a likely scenario. However, such data cannot be used in a rough
ods; instead, it represents a likely scenario. However, such data cannot be used in a rough
way as those with a wider range of values would influence the expected final result more.
way as those with a wider range of values would influence the expected final result more.
Therefore, assigning the same weight to all data is needed for a fair comparison. This
Therefore, assigning the same weight to all data is needed for a fair comparison. This pro-
procedure is called feature scaling.
cedure is called feature scaling.
In this study, each feature was scaled using the normalisation technique according to
In this study, each feature was scaled using the normalisation technique according to
Equation (3):
Equation (3): xi − min( xi )
xnorm = (3)
𝑥 −
max ( ximin(𝑥 ) ( xi )
) − min
𝑥 = (3)
max(𝑥 ) −
where xi is the i-th feature to be transformed, min(𝑥
min(x )
i ) and max(xi ) are the minimum and
the maximum
where 𝑥 is thevalues assumed
i-th feature bytransformed,
to be that specific feature
min(𝑥 )into
andthe database.
max(𝑥 ) are the minimum and
To prevent multicollinearity problems, the relationship
the maximum values assumed by that specific feature into the database.between normalised features
included in the same database is shown in Figure 7. Unlike the previous
To prevent multicollinearity problems, the relationship between normalised graph,features
all the
features are compared here to ensure their complete independence.
included in the same database is shown in Figure 7. Unlike the previous graph, all the
Figure
features are 7a confirms
compared thetoabsence
here ensure of correlation
their complete between the variables belonging to
independence.
Database
Figure 7a confirms the absence of correlation between the 7b
1. Similarly, the scatterplot matrix reported in Figure shows belonging
variables the poor connec-
to Da-
tion between
tabase the features
1. Similarly, includedmatrix
the scatterplot in Database
reported 2. in Figure 7b shows the poor connection
between the features included in Database 2.
 Fibers
Fibers 2021,
2021, 9, 9,
78x FOR PEER REVIEW 11ofof2121
11

(a)

(b)
Figure7.7.Scatterplot
Figure Scatterplot matrix:
matrix: relationship
relationship between
between the
the normalised
normalisedfeatures
featuresofof(a)
(a)Dataset
Dataset1 1and
and(b)
Dataset 2.
(b) Dataset 2.

Aftercompleting
After completingthethe analysis
analysis andand scaling
scaling stages,
stages, each each database
database was randomly
was randomly divideddi-
vided
into into
three three datasets.
datasets. In bothIn both70%
cases, cases,
was70% wasfor
used used for training,
training, 15% for15% for validation,
validation, and 15%and
 Fibers 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

Fibers 2021, 9, 78 15% for model testing. The training set usually represents the most considerable portion 12 of 21
of the database since it is needed to train the network. On the other hand, the validation
set serves to evaluate the model ability to generalise the problem. Specifically, the back-
propagation algorithm performs continuous iteration loops to reduce the gap between the
for model
target testing.
value and theThe trainingoutput.
predicted set usually represents
The training the is
phase most considerable
interrupted whenportion of
the model
the database since it is needed to train the network. On the other hand,
stops improving (constant errors). Finally, the testing set is used as an independent meas-the validation
set
ureserves to evaluate
of network the model ability to generalise the problem. Specifically, the back-
performance.
propagation algorithm performs continuous iteration loops to reduce the gap between
the
4.2.target value
Definition of and the predicted
the Networks output. The training phase is interrupted when the
Architecture
model stops improving (constant errors). Finally, the testing set is used as an independent
As mentioned above, ANNs consist of the input layer, hidden layer(s), and output
measure of network performance.
layer. The number of layers and their size (number of neurons) define the architecture of
the Definition
4.2. network. of Even though the
the Networks definition of this architecture is arbitrary, the choice of the
Architecture
number of neurons in the hidden layer is a delicate phase that requires some essential
As mentioned above, ANNs consist of the input layer, hidden layer(s), and output
iterations
layer. The to avoid the
number generation
of layers of underfitted
and their or overfitted
size (number of neurons)models.
define the architecture
of the network. Even though the definition of this architecture is root
Referring to Database 1, Figure 8 represents the trend of the meansthe
arbitrary, square error
choice of
the number of neurons in the hidden layer is a delicate phase that requires some essentialof
(RMSE, Equation (4)) of the training and validation sets as a function of the number
neurons in
iterations to the hidden
avoid layer. In this
the generation case, a variable
of underfitted number of
or overfitted neurons ranging from 0 to
models.
140 is sufficient to adequately show the error trend.
Referring to Database 1, Figure 8 represents the trend of the root means square error
(RMSE, Equation (4)) of the training and validation sets as a function of the number of
neurons in the hidden layer. In this case, a1variable number of neurons ranging from 0 to
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = (𝑡 − 𝑦 ) (4)
𝑛 trend.
140 is sufficient to adequately show the error
v
u 1 n neurons 2in the hidden layer, 𝑡 is the i-th
u
In Equation (4), n is the number
RMSE = t p-th
of the
n p∑
( ti − yi ) (4)
target value, and 𝑦 is the i-th predicted output.=1

____ RMSE of the training set

____
RMSE of the validation set
RMSE

Number of neurons

Figure8.8.Trend
Figure Trendofofthe
theRMSE
RMSEofofthe
the training
training (blue)
(blue) and
and validation
validation (orange)
(orange) datasets
datasets within
within Database
Database 1.
1.
In Equation (4), n is the number of the p-th neurons in the hidden layer, ti is the i-th
targetFigure
value, 8andrepresents
yi is thetwo
i-th opposite
predictedsituations.
output. At the beginning of the graph, for a num-
ber of neurons
Figure in the hidden
8 represents two layer between
opposite 0 and 5,Atthe
situations. RMSE
the of the of
beginning training and valida-
the graph, for a
number
tion set of
is neurons
high (about in the
0.6)hidden
due tolayer between
the poor 0 and of
capability 5, the
the model
RMSE to of the training
depict and
the input–
validation set is high
target relationship. (about
This 0.6) due
situation to the
reflects poor capability
an underfitted model of because
the model theto depictarchi-
chosen the
input–target relationship.
tecture is insufficient This situation
to represent reflects anof
the complexity underfitted model because
the data provided. As thethe chosenof
number
architecture is insufficient
neurons increases, the RMSE to represent the complexity
of the validation of thediverging
set grows, data provided.
from theAs RMSE
the number
of the
of neurons increases, the RMSE of the validation set grows, diverging from the
training set. As a result, the model becomes overfitted, which means that the high variance RMSE of the
training set. As a result, the model becomes overfitted, which means that the
does not allow it to generalise the problem properly. Over 40 neurons, the model correctly high variance
does not allow it to generalise the problem properly. Over 40 neurons, the model correctly
predicts the compressive strength values included in the training set (low error), but not
those included in the validation set (high error). Hence, such a model will not adapt to the
Fibers 2021,
Fibers 9, 9,
2021, x FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 1313ofof2121

Fibers 2021, 9, 78 13 of 21

predicts
predictsthe thecompressive
compressivestrength
strengthvalues
valuesincluded
includedininthe thetraining
trainingset set(low
(lowerror),
error),but butnot
not
those
thoseincluded
includedininthe thevalidation
validationset set(high
(higherror).
error).Hence,
Hence,suchsucha amodel
modelwill willnot
notadapt
adapttotothethe
new unknown
new unknown
new unknown datadata for
data for which
for which it was
which itit was built.
was built. It
built. Itcan
It can be seen
can be seen that
seen that a highly
that a highly complex
highly complex model
complex model does
model doesdoes
not
notalways
alwayswork
always workbetter
work betterthan
better thanaaasimple
than simplemodel.
simple model.
model.
According
Accordingtoto this
to thisstrategy,
this strategy,
strategy, the
thepoint
thepointatatwhich
point which
at the
whichtheRMSE
RMSE
the ofofthe
RMSE ofvalidation
the validation set
the validation setisismini-
mini-
set is
mum
mumwas
minimum waschosen
chosen asasthe
was chosen theoptimal
optimal
as number
number
the optimal ofofneurons
number of for
neurons forANN1
neuronsANN1 (prediction
for (prediction ofofthe
ANN1 (prediction thecompres-
compres-
of the
sive
sivestrength).
strength).
compressive Namely,
Namely,the
strength). thelowest
lowest
Namely, RMSE
the RMSE isisequal
lowest equaltoto
RMSE is0.265
0.265for
equal to 33
for 33neurons.
0.265 for 33 An
neurons. Anidentical
neurons.identical
An
strategy
identical was
strategy was used
strategy for
usedwas ANN2,
for ANN2,
used for in which
inANN2, the
which the lowest RMSE
lowestthe
in which RMSE is
lowest equal
is equal
RMSE to 0.008
to is0.008for 35
forto
equal neurons
350.008
neurons
for
(Figure
35 9).9). (Figure 9).
neurons
(Figure
____
____ RMSE of of
thethe
training setset
RMSE training
____
____ RMSE of of
thethe
validation setset
RMSE validation
RMSE

RMSE
RMSE

RMSE

Number
Numberof of
neurons
neurons Number
Numberof of
neurons
neurons

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure9.9.
Figure 9.Individuation
Individuationof
Individuation ofthe
of theoptimal
the optimalnumber
optimal numberof
number ofofneurons
neurons
neurons inin
in the
the hidden
the hidden
hidden layer corresponding
layer
layer totothe
corresponding
corresponding tothe minimum
the minimum
minimum RMSEforfor
RMSE
RMSE for
(a)
(a)(a)ANN1
ANN1 and (b)
and ANN2.
(b) ANN2.
ANN1 and (b) ANN2.

The
Thearchitecture
architecturedefined
architecture definedfor
defined forthe
for thetwo
the twonetworks
two networksisis
networks isaaatwo-layer
two-layerfeed-forward
two-layer feed-forwardnetwork
feed-forward network
network
with
withaaasigmoid
with sigmoidtransfer
sigmoid transferfunction
transfer functioninin
function inthe
thehidden
the hiddenlayer
hidden layerand
layer andaaalinear
and lineartransfer
linear transferfunction
transfer functioninin
function inthe
the
the
output
outputlayer
output layer(Figure
layer (Figure10).
(Figure 10).
10).

(a)
(a)
Figure 10. Cont.
 Fibers2021,
Fibers xFOR
2021,9,9,x 78FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 141414
ofof2121
of

(b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 10.
Figure10. Defined
10.Defined architecture
Definedarchitecture for
architecturefor the
forthe two
thetwo networks:
twonetworks: (a)
networks:(a) ANN1
(a)ANN1 and
ANN1and (b)
and(b) ANN2.
(b)ANN2.
ANN2.

4.3.Training
4.3. Trainingofofthe
Training theNetworks
Networks
Oncethe
Once
Once thearchitecture
architectureisisdefined,
defined,the theLevenberg–Marquardt
Levenberg–Marquardtback-propagation
back-propagationalgo-
back-propagation algo-
algo-
rithm is used
rithmisisused
rithm to
usedtototraintrain
trainthe the networks.
thenetworks.
networks.For For
Forthe the specific
thespecific
specificcase,case,
case,this this algorithm
thisalgorithm
algorithmshows shows
showsbetter better
betterper-
per-
performance
formance
formance (fastest
(fastest
(fastest convergence)
convergence)
convergence) than than
than the
the
the Gauss–Newton
Gauss–Newton
Gauss–Newton ororor steepest
steepest
steepest descentalgorithms
descent
descent algorithms
sinceititrepresents
since representsan anhybrid
hybridmethod
methodthat thatcombines
combinesthetheadvantages
advantagesofofthethetwo
twopreviously
previously
mentioned
mentioned ones
ones
mentioned ones [38,49]. [38,49].
[38,49].
Thecoding
codingwas wasperformed
performedinin MATLAB ® R2019a. The pseudocode of the developed
The
The coding was performed inMATLAB
MATLAB ®® R2019a.The
R2019a. Thepseudocode
pseudocodeofofthethedeveloped
developed
algorithmisis
algorithm
algorithm isreported
reportedinin
reported inFigure
Figure11.
Figure 11.
11.

Figure11.
Figure 11.ANN
ANN
ANN pseudocode.
pseudocode.
pseudocode.

Oncethe
Once
Once accuracyand
theaccuracy
accuracy performanceofofthe
andperformance
performance thebuilt
builtnetwork
networkwas
wasverified, wassaved
verified,ititwas saved
and
and reused
reused to
to predict
predict unknown
unknown outputs
outputs from
from new
new features.
features.
and reused to predict unknown outputs from new features.
5. Evaluation
Evaluation of of the
the Performance
Performance
5.5.Evaluation of the Performance
In this
this section,
section,the
theperformances
performances of the two generated networks are evaluated by
InInthis section, the performances ofofthethe two
two generated
generated networks
networks areevaluated
are evaluated byan-
by an-
analysing (i) the error trend and (ii) the accuracy of the predicted outcomes.
alysing(i)(i)the
alysing theerror
errortrend
trendand
and(ii)
(ii)the
theaccuracy
accuracyofofthe
thepredicted
predictedoutcomes.
outcomes.
5.1. Error Trend
5.1.Error
5.1. ErrorTrend
Trend
The performance of the trained models can be assessed through the evaluation of the
mean The
The performance
performance
squared ofofthe
error (MSE),thetrained
trainedmodels
models
accordingly canbebeassessed
can
to Equation assessed throughthe
(5): through theevaluation
evaluationofofthe
the
meansquared
mean squarederror
error(MSE),
(MSE),accordingly
accordinglytotoEquation
Equation(5):
(5):
n
1
MSE =
n ∑ ( t i − y i )2 (5)
i =1
 Fibers 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Fibers 2021, 9, 78 1 15 of 21
𝑀𝑆𝐸 = (𝑡 − 𝑦 ) (5)
𝑛

where n is the number of the p-th neurons, 𝑡 is the i-th target value, and 𝑦 is the i-th
where n is the number of the p-th neurons, ti is the i-th target value, and yi is the i-th
predicted output. Unlike the RMSE (Equation (4)), the MSE formula does not have the
predicted output. Unlike the RMSE (Equation (4)), the MSE formula does not have the
square root; hence, the error can also assume negative values.
square root; hence, the error can also assume negative values.
The graphs of Figure 12 indicate at which iteration (epoch) the validation phase
The graphs of Figure 12 indicate at which iteration (epoch) the validation phase reaches
reaches
the lowest the lowest
MSE MSEi.e.,
value, value,
the i.e.,
bestthe best performance.
performance. The convergence
The convergence occursoccurs at epoch
at epoch 16,
16, with the MSE equal to 0.16687 for ANN1, and epoch 5, with the MSE
with the MSE equal to 0.16687 for ANN1, and epoch 5, with the MSE equal to 0.00016 forequal to 0.00016
for ANN2.
ANN2. The The figures
figures alsoalso confirm
confirm thatthat
the the
ANNANN models
models areare correctly
correctly working
working since
since the
the
MSEs trend of the training set is lower than those of the validation and testing
MSEs trend of the training set is lower than those of the validation and testing sets which sets which
arereasonably
are reasonablysimilar.
similar.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 12.12. Performance
Performance ofof the
the trained
trained networks:
networks: (a)(a) ANN1
ANN1 and
and (b)(b) ANN2.
ANN2.

Error
Errorhistograms
histograms are presented
are presented inin
Figure 13.13.
Figure The error
The ranges
error ranges from
from−1.451
−1.451toto1.796
1.796for
for
ANN1
ANN1and and from
from −0.032
−0.032toto0.025 forfor
0.025 ANN2.
ANN2. Analysing
Analysingthethe
firstfirst
oneone
(Figure 13a),13a),
(Figure outliers at
outliers
the
at extreme sidessides
the extreme of theofgraph are negligible.
the graph Most of
are negligible. the of
Most data
theused
datafor training,
used validating,
for training, vali-
and model testing are centred in the histogram, close to the zero-error
dating, and model testing are centred in the histogram, close to the zero-error line.line. In the case
Inof
the
Figure
case of13b, the errors
Figure are errors
13b, the insteadare
more widely
instead distributed
more within the interval.
widely distributed within the However,
interval.
itHowever,
should be itnoted
shouldthat,
beinnoted
proportion
that, intoproportion
the values assumed
to the valuesby the tensile strength,
assumed the
by the tensile
corresponding error values areerror
strength, the corresponding acceptable.
values are acceptable.

5.2. Prediction Accuracy of the Compressive Strength (ANN1)

The first neural network (ANN1), trained with Database 1 to predict the compressive
strength, showed sufficient accuracy. Figure 14 shows how the correlation coefficients
(R-values) between output values and targets are very high: 0.98 for the training set, 0.95
for the validation set, 0.97 for the testing set, and 0.98 for the total response.
The dashed line represents the ideal relationship between the predicted and target
values, and the solid line represents the real regression line (the most suitable between the
predicted and target values).
It is worth noting that while the training set regression indicates the model ability to
interpolate data, the validation set regression suggests the model ability to generalise the
problem. Therefore, once the model correctly maps the features–targets relationship within
the database (which must significantly represent the problem), it can be used with new
unknown features to make some predictions.
 Fibers 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 16 of 21

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Error histograms: (a) ANN1 and (b) ANN2.

5.2. Prediction Accuracy of the Compressive Strength (ANN1)

The first neural network (ANN1), trained with Database 1 to predict the compress
strength, showed sufficient accuracy. Figure 14 shows how the correlation coefficients
(a) (b)
values) between output values and targets are very high: 0.98 for the training set, 0.95
Figure13.
the validation
Figure 13.Error
Error0.97
set, histograms:
for the
histograms: (a)
(a) ANN1and
testing
ANN1 and (b)
set,(b)
andANN2.
0.98 for the total response.
ANN2.

5.2. Prediction Accuracy of the Compressive Strength (ANN1)

The first neural network (ANN1), trained with Database 1 to predict the compressive
strength, showed sufficient accuracy. Figure 14 shows how the correlation coefficients (R-
values) between output values and targets are very high: 0.98 for the training set, 0.95 for
the validation set, 0.97 for the testing set, and 0.98 for the total response.

Figure 14. Linear regression between compressive strength target values and ANN1 actual outputs.
Figure 14. Linear regression between compressive strength target values and ANN1 actual outp
Figure 14. Linear regression between compressive strength target values and ANN1 actual outputs.
 It is worth noting that while the training set regression indicates the model ability
interpolate data, the validation set regression suggests the model ability to generalise
problem. Therefore, once the model correctly maps the features–targets relations
within the database (which must significantly represent the problem), it can be used w
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 new unknown features to make some predictions. 17 of 21

5.3. Prediction Accuracy of the Tensile Strength (ANN2)

5.3. Prediction
The second Accuracy
neuralof the Tensile Strength
network (ANN2), (ANN2)
trained with Database 2 for the prediction of
tensileThe second neural
strength, network
has also (ANN2),
shown trained with
promising Database
results. The 2correlation
for the prediction of the betw
coefficients
tensile strength, has also shown promising results. The correlation coefficients between
output values and targets are still very high: 0.92 for the training set, 0.90 for the validat
output values and targets are still very high: 0.92 for the training set, 0.90 for the validation
set,
set,0.92 for the
0.92 for thetesting
testingset,set,
andand
0.910.91 fortotal
for the the response
total response
(Figure (Figure
15). 15).

15. Linear
Figure 15.
Figure Linearregression
regressionbetween tensile
between strength
tensile target values
strength targetand ANN2
values actual
and ANN2 outputs.
actual outputs.
The general correlation coefficients found in both cases, RANN1 = 0.98 and RANN2 = 0.91,
still The general the
demonstrate correlation coefficients
efficacy of foundapplied
neural networks in bothtocases, RANN1problem
the search = 0.98 and RANN2 = 0
of fit-
still demonstrate
ting functions. the efficacy of neural networks applied to the search problem of fitt
functions.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to generate two Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) to
6. Conclusions
predict the compressive (ANN1) and tensile strengths (ANN2) of natural fibre-reinforced
CEBs.TheDespite
purpose the of this study
growing use ofwas to generate
Machine Learningtwo(ML)
Artificial Neural
algorithms Networks (ANNs
in engineering
predict the compressive (ANN1) and tensile
problems, few applications involve CEBs [34,47]. strengths (ANN2) of natural fibre-reinfor
CEBs.ToDespite
train thethe growing
ANNs, use of Machine
two databases Learning
were created (ML) algorithms
by collecting data from fiveinliterature
engineering pr
works [19,22,53–55]. In particular, data
lems, few applications involve CEBs [34,47].relating to 332 specimens were used to predict the
compressive strength (Database 1) and data relating to 130 specimens were used to predict
the tensile strength (Database 2). The developed networks showed sufficient prediction
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 18 of 21

accuracy, i.e., R-values equal to 0.97 for ANN1 and 0.91 for ANN2. Building on these
encouraging outcomes, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• ANNs may be widely used within the scope of CEB optimisation to orient experimen-
tal campaigns and support numerical investigations. The possibility of executing many
analyses in a short time represents valuable support to facilitate the development of a
new durable and sustainable construction material, opening new opportunities for
both researchers and practitioners.
• The database used covers a range of values that reproduce the most commonly
obtained laboratory results. It does not classify the fibres on the basis of their original
natural source (type of plants or animals) but on the basis of their physical and
mechanical characterisation (density, length, tensile strength). This approach does
not affect the predictive capabilities of the proposed model, as both the compressive
and tensile strength of fibre-reinforced CEBs with type of fibres not included in the
database can still be deduced from the ANNs as long as the characteristics entered fall
within the available ranges.
• The prediction accuracy of the networks depends on the data sets used, and it would
be advantageous to enhance and enrich it by providing new and increasingly variable
data. To this end, a complete dataset should include mixture proportion (wt.%)
comprising all components used (soil, as a composition of gravel, sand, silt and clay,
cement, or other kinds of stabiliser, water, fibres, etc.), type of fibres, their length,
tensile strength and chemical treatment, specimens’ size, age, etc. Such a list can be
clearly extended with additional features according to the necessities.
• Future developments should be aimed at continuing the experimentation on blocks,
collecting new data and further investigating the mechanisms that regulate the effect
of fibres in the earth matrix. In this regard, it is essential to point out the importance
of carefully and adequately designing experiments through, for example, the Design
of the Experiments (DoE) methods. This would mitigate many problems related to
uncertainty, and the approach to studying this promising construction technology
would be better defined, allowing the scientific community to collaborate in creating
an appropriate physical model.
• In addition to the mere prediction of the resistance values, ML algorithms can af-
terwards be used to optimise the design of the mixtures. In fact, it is well known
that in the experiment-based approach, the user can rarely control all the variables,
almost never reaching the optimal performing option. Especially in the case of new
materials to be placed on the market, multi-objective optimisation problems are often
faced, posing objectives that can also be in contrast with each other: compliance with
regulatory standards, production costs, environmental impact, etc. To benefit from the
support of AI, future studies should define variables, objectives, and constraints to
ensure that the problem is correctly addressed.
This study can be considered as an attempt to develop a predictive model, as the
available data are scarce. On the other hand, it represents only the first step towards
elaborating a more sophisticated modelling strategy, moving towards the development
of increasingly reliable computational tools capable of capturing and satisfying multiple
needs to support decision makers.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, C.T. and M.F.F.; methodology, C.T.; software, C.T. and
M.F.F.; validation, C.T.; formal analysis, C.T.; investigation, C.T.; data curation, C.T. and E.T.; writing—
original draft preparation, C.T. and M.F.F.; writing—review and editing, C.T., R.M. and E.T.; visuali-
sation, C.T.; supervision, R.M. and E.T.; project administration, R.M. and E.T. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 19 of 21

Funding: This work was funded by the FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology), under grant
agreement UIBD/150874/2021 attributed to the first author. This work was also partly financed by
Fundação “La Caixa”, under the reference PV20-00072, and FCT/MCTES through national funds
(PIDDAC) under the R&D Unit Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering
(ISISE), under reference UIDB/04029/2020.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting the reported results in the present study are available
upon request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rigassi, V. Compressed Earth Blocks: Manual of Production; GATE: Eschborn, Germany, 1985; Volume 1.
2. Minke, G. Building with Earth: Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture, 2nd ed.; Birkhauser: Boston, MA, USA,
2009; pp. 30–32.
3. Ben Mansour, M.; Jelidi, A.; Cherif, A.S.; Ben Jabrallah, S. Optimizing thermal and mechanical performance of compressed earth
blocks (CEB). Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 104, 44–51. [CrossRef]
4. Teixeira, E.; Machado, G.; Junior, A.P.; Guarnier, C.; Fernandes, J.; Silva, S.; Mateus, R. Mechanical and Thermal Performance
Characterisation of Compressed Earth Blocks. Energies 2020, 13, 2978. [CrossRef]
5. Fernandes, J.; Peixoto, M.; Mateus, R.; Gervásio, H. Life cycle analysis of environmental impacts of earthen materials in the
Portuguese context: Rammed earth and compressed earth blocks. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118286. [CrossRef]
6. Mateus, R.; Fernandes, J.; Teixeira, E.R. Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Earthen Building Materials; Elsevier BV: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2020. [CrossRef]
7. Jannat, N.; Hussien, A.; Abdullah, B.; Cotgrave, A. Application of agro and non-agro waste materials for unfired earth blocks
construction: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 254, 119346. [CrossRef]
8. Laborel-Préneron, A.; Aubert, J.; Magniont, C.; Tribout, C.; Bertron, A. Plant aggregates and fibers in earth construction materials:
A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 111, 719–734. [CrossRef]
9. Danso, H.; Martinson, B.; Ali, M.; Mant, C. Performance characteristics of enhanced soil blocks: A quantitative review. Build. Res.
Inf. 2014, 43, 253–262. [CrossRef]
10. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Jalali, S. Earth construction: Lessons from the past for future eco-efficient construction. Constr. Build. Mater.
2012, 29, 512–519. [CrossRef]
11. Aymerich, F.; Fenu, L.; Francesconi, L.; Meloni, P. Fracture behaviour of a fibre reinforced earthen material under static and
impact flexural loading. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 109, 109–119. [CrossRef]
12. Salih, M.M.; Osofero, A.I.; Imbabi, M.S. Critical review of recent development in fiber reinforced adobe bricks for sustainable
construction. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2020, 14, 839–854. [CrossRef]
13. Mohajerani, A.; Hui, S.-Q.; Mirzababaei, M.; Arulrajah, A.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Abdul Kadir, A.; Rahman, M.T.; Maghool, F. Amazing
Types, Properties, and Applications of Fibres in Construction Materials. Materials 2019, 12, 2513. [CrossRef]
14. Ramakrishnan, S.; Loganayagan, S.; Kowshika, G.; Ramprakash, C.; Aruneshwaran, M. Adobe blocks reinforced with natural
fibres: A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 6493–6499. [CrossRef]
15. Turco, C.; Junior, A.C.P.; Teixeira, E.R.; Mateus, R. Optimisation of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEBs) using natural origin materials:
A systematic literature review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 309, 125140. [CrossRef]
16. Millogo, Y.; Aubert, J.-E.; Hamard, E.; Morel, J.-C. How Properties of Kenaf Fibers from Burkina Faso Contribute to the
Reinforcement of Earth Blocks. Materials 2015, 8, 2332–2345. [CrossRef]
17. Laibi, A.B.; Poullain, P.; Leklou, N.; Gomina, M.; Sohounhloué, D.K.C. Influence of the kenaf fiber length on the mechanical and
thermal properties of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB). KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 22, 785–793. [CrossRef]
18. Danso, H.; Martinson, B.; Ali, M.; Williams, J. Physical, mechanical and durability properties of soil building blocks reinforced
with natural fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 797–809. [CrossRef]
19. Vodounon, N.A.; Kanali, C.; Mwero, J. Compressive and Flexural Strengths of Cement Stabilized Earth Bricks Reinforced with
Treated and Untreated Pineapple Leaves Fibres. Open J. Compos. Mater. 2018, 8, 145–160. [CrossRef]
20. Vincenzini, A.; Augarde, C.E.; Gioffrè, M. Experimental characterization of natural fibre–soil interaction: Lessons for earthen
construction. Mater. Struct. 2021, 54, 110. [CrossRef]
21. Danso, H.; Martinson, B.; Ali, M.; Williams, J. Effect of fibre aspect ratio on mechanical properties of soil building blocks. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2015, 83, 314–319. [CrossRef]
22. Mostafa, M.; Uddin, N. Effect of Banana Fibers on the Compressive and Flexural Strength of Compressed Earth Blocks. Buildings
2015, 5, 282–296. [CrossRef]
23. Taallah, B.; Guettala, A. The mechanical and physical properties of compressed earth block stabilized with lime and filled with
untreated and alkali-treated date palm fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 104, 52–62. [CrossRef]
24. Laborel-Préneron, A.; Aubert, J.-E.; Magniont, C.; Maillard, P.; Poirier, C. Effect of Plant Aggregates on Mechanical Properties of
Earth Bricks. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 04017244. [CrossRef]
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 20 of 21

25. Ajouguim, S.; Talibi, S.; Djelal-Dantec, C.; Hajjou, H.; Waqif, M.; Stefanidou, M.; Saadi, L. Effect of Alfa fibers on the mechanical
and thermal properties of compacted earth bricks. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 37, 4049–4057. [CrossRef]
26. Hema, C.; Messan, A.; Lawane, A.; Soro, D.; Nshimiyimana, P.; van Moeseke, G. Improving the thermal comfort in hot region
through the design of walls made of compressed earth blocks: An experimental investigation. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 38, 102148.
[CrossRef]
27. Nshimiyimana, P.; Hema, C.; Zoungrana, O.; Messan, A.; Courard, L. Courard, Thermophysical and mechanical properties
of compressed earth blocks containing fibres: By-product of okra plant and polymer waste, WIT Trans. Built. Environ. 2020,
195, 149–161. [CrossRef]
28. Velasco-Aquino, A.A.; Espuna-Mujica, J.A.; Perez-Sanchez, J.F.; Zuñiga-Leal, C.; Palacio-Perez, A.; Suarez-Dominguez, E.J.
Compressed earth block reinforced with coconut fibers and stabilized with aloe vera and lime. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021,
19, 795–807. [CrossRef]
29. Danso, H.; Martinson, B.; Ali, M.; Williams, J.B. Mechanisms by which the inclusion of natural fibres enhance the properties of
soil blocks for construction. J. Compos. Mater. 2017, 51, 3835–3845. [CrossRef]
30. Hagan, M.T.; Dcmuth, H.B.; Beale, M. Neural Network Design; PWS Publishing Co.: Boston, MA, USA, 1996.
31. Lee, S.-C. Prediction of concrete strength using artificial neural networks. Eng. Struct. 2003, 25, 849–857. [CrossRef]
32. Sarıdemir, M.; Topçu, I.B.; Özcan, F.; Severcan, M.H. Prediction of long-term effects of GGBFS on compressive strength of concrete
by artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1279–1286. [CrossRef]
33. Topçu, İ.B.; Sarıdemir, M. Prediction of mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concretes containing silica fume using
artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2008, 42, 74–82. [CrossRef]
34. Sitton, J.D.; Zeinali, Y.; Story, B.A. Rapid soil classification using artificial neural networks for use in constructing compressed
earth blocks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 138, 214–221. [CrossRef]
35. Lan, G.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, J. Compressive strength of earth block masonry: Estimation based on neural networks and
adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system. Compos. Struct. 2020, 235, 111731. [CrossRef]
36. DeRousseau, M.; Kasprzyk, J.; Srubar, W. Computational design optimization of concrete mixtures: A review. Cem. Concr. Res.
2018, 109, 42–53. [CrossRef]
37. Garzón-Roca, J.; Marco, C.O.; Adam, J.M. Compressive strength of masonry made of clay bricks and cement mortar: Estimation
based on Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic. Eng. Struct. 2013, 48, 21–27. [CrossRef]
38. Zhou, Q.; Wang, F.; Zhu, F. Estimation of compressive strength of hollow concrete masonry prisms using artificial neural networks
and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 417–426. [CrossRef]
39. Golafshani, E.M.; Behnood, A.; Arashpour, M. Predicting the compressive strength of normal and High-Performance Concretes
using ANN and ANFIS hybridized with Grey Wolf Optimizer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 232, 117266. [CrossRef]
40. Azimi-Pour, M.; Eskandari-Naddaf, H. ANN and GEP prediction for simultaneous effect of nano and micro silica on the
compressive and flexural strength of cement mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 189, 978–992. [CrossRef]
41. Güçlüer, K.; Özbeyaz, A.; Göymen, S.; Günaydın, O. A comparative investigation using machine learning methods for concrete
compressive strength estimation. Mater. Today Commun. 2021, 27, 102278. [CrossRef]
42. Teymen, A.; Mengüç, E.C. Comparative evaluation of different statistical tools for the prediction of uniaxial compressive strength
of rocks. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2020, 30, 785–797. [CrossRef]
43. Dantas, A.T.A.; Leite, M.B.; de Jesus Nagahama, K. Prediction of compressive strength of concrete containing construction and
demolition waste using artificial neural networks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 717–722. [CrossRef]
44. Duan, Z.; Kou, S.; Poon, C.S. Using artificial neural networks for predicting the elastic modulus of recycled aggregate concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 44, 524–532. [CrossRef]
45. Neeraja, D.; Swaroop, G. Prediction of Compressive Strength of Concrete using Artificial Neural Networks. Res. J. Pharm. Technol.
2017, 10, 35. [CrossRef]
46. Topçu, I.B.; Sarıdemir, M. Prediction of compressive strength of concrete containing fly ash using artificial neural networks and
fuzzy logic. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2008, 41, 305–311. [CrossRef]
47. Ongpeng, J.M.C.; Gapuz, E.; Roxas, C.L.C. Optimization of mix proportions of compressed earth blocks with rice straw using
artificial neural network. In Proceedings of the 2017 World Congress on Advances in Strucural Engineering and Mechanics
(ASEM17), Seoul, Korea, 28 August–1 September 2017; pp. 1–14.
48. Samuel, A.L. Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers. IBM J. Res. Dev. 1959, 3, 210–229. [CrossRef]
49. Marai, M.A.; Ahmed, M.A.; Mousa, S.E.-B. Neural networks for predicting compressive strength of structural light weight
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2214–2219. [CrossRef]
50. Kang, M.-C.; Yoo, D.-Y.; Gupta, R. Machine learning-based prediction for compressive and flexural strengths of steel fiber-
reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 266, 121117. [CrossRef]
51. Huang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Ann, F.T.; Ma, G. Intelligent mixture design of steel fibre reinforced concrete using a support vector
regression and firefly algorithm based multi-objective optimization model. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 120457. [CrossRef]
52. Young, B.A.; Hall, A.; Pilon, L.; Gupta, P.; Sant, G. Can the compressive strength of concrete be estimated from knowledge of the
mixture proportions?: New insights from statistical analysis and machine learning methods. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 115, 379–388.
[CrossRef]
Fibers 2021, 9, 78 21 of 21

53. Danso, H. Use of Agricultural Waste Fibres as Enhancement of Soil Blocks for Low-Cost Housing in Ghana, University of
Portsmouth. 2016. Available online: https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/use-of-agricultural-waste-fibres-as-
enhancement-of-soil-blocks-fo (accessed on 27 September 2021).
54. Mostafa, M.; Uddin, N. Experimental analysis of Compressed Earth Block (CEB) with banana fibers resisting flexural and
compression forces. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2016, 5, 53–63. [CrossRef]
55. Lejano, B.A.; Gabaldon, R.J.; Go, P.J.; Juan, C.G.; Wong, M. Compressed earth blocks with powdered green mussel shell as partial
binder and pig hair as fiber reinforcement. Int. J. GEOMATE 2019, 16, 137–143. [CrossRef]
56. Araya-Letelier, G.; Antico, F.C.; Urzua, J.; Bravo, R. Physical-mechanical characterization of fiber-reinforced mortar incorporating
pig hair. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Bio-Based Building Materials & 1st Conference on ECOlogical
Valorisation of GRAnular and FIbrous Materials, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 21–23 June 2017.
57. Delgado, M.C.J.; Guerrero, I.C. The selection of soils for unstabilised earth building: A normative review. Constr. Build. Mater.
2007, 21, 237–251. [CrossRef]
58. Day, R.W. Soil Testing Manual: Procedures, Classification Data, and Sampling Practices; McGraw Hill, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
59. Akhzouz, H.; El Minor, H.; Tatane, M.; Bendarma, A. Physical characterization of bio-composite CEB stabilized with Argan nut
shell and cement. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 36, 107–114. [CrossRef]