Computers and Concrete, Vol. 27, No.

1 (2021) 000-000
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2021.27.1.000 000

The prediction of compressive strength and non-destructive tests

of sustainable concrete by using artificial neural networks
Ahmed M. Tahwia1a, Ashraf Heniegal2b, Mohamed S. Elgamal1c and Bassam A. Tayeh3
1
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt
2
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University, Egypt
3
Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine

(Received September 14, 2020, Revised December 8, 2020, Accepted December 11, 2020)

Abstract. The Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is a system, which is utilized for solving complicated problems by using
nonlinear equations. This study aims to investigate compressive strength, rebound hammer number (RN), and ultrasonic pulse
velocity (UPV) of sustainable concrete containing various amounts of fly ash, silica fume, and blast furnace slag (BFS). In this
study, the artificial neural network technique connects a nonlinear phenomenon and the intrinsic properties of sustainable
concrete, which establishes relationships between them in a model. To this end, a total of 645 data sets were collected for the
concrete mixtures from previously published papers at different curing times and test ages at 3, 7, 28, 90, 180 days to propose a
model of nine inputs and three outputs. The ANN model’s statistical parameter R2 is 0.99 of the training, validation, and test
steps, which showed that the proposed model provided good prediction of compressive strength, RN, and UPV of sustainable
concrete with the addition of cement.
Keywords: artificial neural network; nondestructive tests; Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV); compressive strength;
sustainable concrete; pozzolanic materials

1. Introduction include moisture content, the temperature of the concrete,

Today, the concrete market is highly competitive. The
firms are, therefore, striving to cut down on costs by using
technology in the concrete industry and the tests of
concrete. There are empirical equations for estimating the
compressive strength of concrete, which are based on the
concrete tests for normal concrete only (Aflaki and Moodi
2017). Accordingly, non-destructive tests (NDT) were
performed on the concrete structure on-site with little cost
and small damage to the structure. Among the available
NDT tests, the Rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse
velocity are the most widely implemented on-site tests in
assessing the strength of concrete. These tests have been
performed on the samples according to ASTM C805, and
they obtained values of rebound number (RN). The rebound
number has some factors, including sample size, age, the
finish of the concrete, the moisture content, and aggregate
type. The ultra-pulse velocity (UPV) test has been
conducted following the requirements of ASTM C597. The
factors that influence the pulse velocity measurements
Corresponding author, Associate Professor
E-mail: btayeh@iugaza.edu.ps
a
Professor
E-mail: Atahwia@mans.edu.eg
b
Professor
E-mail: Ashraf.heneagal@suezuni.edu.eg
c
MSc. Student
E-mail: m.salamelgamal@gmail.com
Copyright © 2021 Techno-Press, Ltd.
http://www.techno-press.org/?journal=cac&subpage=8
path length, shape, the size of the specimen, and the effect
of reinforcing bars (according to BS 1881-203).
The artificial neural network (ANN) is a computational
model, which is inspired by the biological neural networks
in the human brain that process information. These neural
networks can learn and correlate large datasets obtained
from experiments or simulations. The trained neural
network can serve as an analytical instrument for qualified
prognoses of the actual results. Thus, there exist efficient
methods for training and validation, which can obtain
scores of high accuracy in the prediction, Alarge set of
training functions such as quasi-Newton, Resilient, One-
step secant, Gradient descent with the momentum and
adaptive learning rate, and the Levenberg–Marquardt
backpropagation algorithms, has been investigated for the
training phase of the BPNN models. Among these
algorithms, Levenberg–Marquardt showed the capability of
achieving the most optimum prediction (Asteris and Mokos
2020).
The ANN comprises three varying steps, including
training, validation, and test. In training, the epochs are
repeated if it is not gotten into the desired output accuracy.
The validation step errors are monitored during this training
step. The test set error is the error that is utilized for
comparing different models. The ANN is used in varied
engineering applications; it can generate relationships
between the input and the output parameters to provide
approximate results (Khademi and Jamal 2016).
Nowadays, the ANN can be applied to numerous civil
engineering problems with a certain level of success like
determining structural damage, structural system
ISSN: 1598-8198 (Print), 1598-818X (Online)
 Ahmed M. Tahwia, Ashraf Heniegal, Mohamed S. Elgamal and Bassam A. Tayeh
determination, material behavior modeling, structural
optimization, structural control, groundwater monitor,
prediction of shallow foundation settlement, concrete mix
components, prediction of conventional concrete properties,
and high-performance concrete. (Pann et al. 2003, Topçu
and Sarıdemir 2007, Sadowski et al. 2018, Liu and Zheng
2019) developed a model of compressive strength
development in concrete that contains four types of gelled
materials with the artificial intelligence method. Topcu and
Saridemir (Topçu and Sarıdemir 2007, Choi and Azari
2017) predicted waste autoclaved aerated concrete
aggregate properties by the artificial neural network. (Özcan
et al. 2009) examined the neural networks to predict long-
term compressive strength of silica fume concrete.
(Sarıdemir 2009) investigated using the neural network to
develop a specific prediction methodology to predict the
compressive strength of concrete with different w/c ratios.
The researchers have put the data used in the neural
network model in a specific format of five input parameters,
which cover the water-to-binder ratio, the binder sand ratio,
the metakaolin percentage, the superplasticizer percentage,
and age (Diab,et al. 2014). The ANN approach was applied
as a machine-learning-based model for the carbonation
behavior of fly-ash concrete (Kellouche et al. 2019) and
(Ayat et al. 2018). The backpropagation algorithm was used
in this work with the gradient descent method to minimize
the error in weights associated with the training data in the
neural network. Weights were obtained for the correlated
neurons layers and, consequently, the output was identified
as a polynomial function with weighted coefficients.
(Alabduljabbar et al. 2020, Xu et al. 2019).
The use of supplementary cementing materials (SCM)
has exhibited a substantial increase in recent years due to
environmental, technical, and economical benefits. Blast
Furnace Slag (BFS) is made as an industrial by-product of
manufacturing iron in a blast furnace. The use of BFS in
concrete has increased strength and durability. Fly Ash (FA)
is produced as a by-product of burning coal in power plants.
Using fly-ash in concrete also improves mechanical
properties and workability, In addition, the reduced
permeability of fly-ash concretes results in improved
durability and resistance to different forms of deterioration
due to sulfate attack, chloride ingress, and corrosion.
(Kellouche et al. 2019) It is recommended that concrete
should contain no more than 30 percent of FA (by mass of
total cementitious materials) (Neville 1995). Silica Fume
(SF) is an ultrafine powdered, which is collected as a by-
product and waste material of the silicon, as well as
ferrosilicon production. All the mentioned SCM can provide
pozzolanic reactions, in addition to filling effect on the
matrix. The addition of silica fume produced the highest
increase in strength when compared to other supplementary
cementitious materials (fly ash, slag, and combinations).
The increase in the strength of silica fume concrete can be
attributed to the improvement in the bond between the
hydrated cement matrix and the aggregate. This is due to
the conversion of calcium hydroxide, which has a tendency
to form calcium silicate hydrate on the surface of aggregate
particles (Toutanji et al. 2004).
Blast-furnace slag (BFS), which has been widely used as
an additive in cement and concrete, has the advantages of
Table 1 Physical and mechanical properties of cement
(CEM I 42.5 N)
Cement Setting Time (min) Compressive strength (MPa)
Properties Fineness
(m2/Kg) Initial Final 2 days 28 days
Test result 365 110 280 22 48.8
ES 4756- Not less
Not less Not less Not less than
1/2013
than 275 than 60
-
20 MPa
than 42.5
limits MPa
high lateral strength, good durability, and chemical stability,
among others. BFS is produced as a waste product from
both ferrous and nonferrous metals industries. Cement with
high BFS contents has low strength at early curing times
because of the slow hydration reaction of slag (Atici 2011).
In this study, it is important to examine the relationship
between concrete and the prediction of the concrete mixture
strength.
In the existing scholarly research, the prediction of
compressive strength and the prediction of non-destructive
tests for normal concrete has been investigated. This study
aims to investigate the prediction of destructive and non-
destructive tests together in the same model depending on
the components of sustainable concrete containing
supplementary cementing materials (e.g., silica fume, blast
furnace slag, and fly ash). The destructive and non-
destructive tests are very costly and, therefore, the proposed
model of prediction is expected to economize the high cost.
Layout of the study
1. Data Collection: A total of 645 data sets were
collected from experiments, which were performed in
previously published papers. Then, a model based on the
neural networks has been formulated by the Matlab
program.
2. The experiment: An experimental test was conducted
on concrete by using the Schmidt hammer test, the UPV
test, in addition to obtaining the cubes’ compressive
strength to validate and test the model.
2. Materials and tests
2.1 Materials:
The specimens were implemented by designing a mix
proportion in concrete cubes of 150×150×150 mm in the
laboratory using ready-mix concrete in the structural field.
The properties of the material are as follows:
Cement: Portland cement with a grade of 42.5 has been
used. The physical and mechanical properties of the used
cement are illustrated in Table 1 This type of cement
conforms to the Egyptian standard (ES 4756:1-2013).
Silica fume: It is an ultrafine powdered, which is
collected as a by-product and waste material of the silicon,
as well as ferrosilicon production (Philips et al. 2016). SF
was collected from the Egyptian Ferro Alloys Company
(EFACO). Silica comprises spherical particles with a mean
particle diameter of 120 nm and has a specific gravity of 2.2
t/m3..
 The prediction of compressive strength and non-destructive tests of sustainable concrete by using artificial neural networks

Fly ash: It is a waste material, which is collected from Table 2 A sample of the collected data
the thermal power station and has a specific gravity of 2.3 Inputs Outputs
t/m3. FA is class C according to ASTM C618. Components (Kg/m3) Age Fcu RN UPV
Blast furnace slag (BFS), BFS has been locally (day) (MPa) (m/s)
PC Fagg Cagg FA SF BFS W SP
obtained from Helwan Iron and Steel Company. The Blaine
270 681 1021 30 0 0 90 0 3 16.48 34 4712
specific surface area is 510 m2 /kg and its specific gravity is
240 681 1021 60 0 0 90 0 3 10.3 36 5033
2.9 t/m3. The utilized BFS grade is 80 according to ASTM
C 989/99. 210 681 1021 90 0 0 90 0 7 18.2 34 4692
Fine aggregate: Natural fine and clean sand with a 150 681 1021 150 0 0 90 0 7 16.3 42 5162
fineness modulus of 2.9 and a specific gravity of 2.56 were 120 681 1021 0 0 180 90 0 180 23 45.2 5652
used in this study. The sand complies with the Egyptian 210 681 1021 0 0 90 90 0 3 15.6 46 4868
standard (ES 1109:2008). 240 681 1021 0 0 60 90 0 3 10.62 29 4783
Coarse aggregate: Local crushed dolomite of 4/20 mm 450 582 1163 0 27 0 158 7.9 7 43.7 45.2 4610
from Anaka in Suez city was used in this study. The used 450 582 1163 0 27 0 158 7.9 28 52.65 49.11 5080
dolomite has a specific gravity of 2.65 t/m3 and complies 450 582 1163 0 27 0 158 7.9 56 55.82 52.25 5110
with the Egyptian standard (ES 1109:2008). 240 681 1021 30 0 30 90 0 3 17 35 4689
Water: Water is clean, free from any harmful matter, 210 681 1021 30 0 60 90 0 7 16.64 49 5050
and taken from a public utility. 240 681 1021 30 0 30 90 0 28 16 42 5188
Superplasticizer: A commercially available 240 681 1021 30 0 30 90 0 90 23.9 44 5271
polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer was used in the 210 681 1021 30 0 60 90 0 180 30.2 41 5014
mixtures. where PC: cement, Fagg: fine aggregate, Cagg: coarse aggregate,
FA: fly ash, SF: silica fume, BFS: blast furnace slag, W: water, SP:
2.2 Manufacturing the specimens: superplasticizer, RN: rebound number, UPV: ultrasonic pulse
velocity, and Fcu: compressive strength.
1. The specimens were cast in a concrete slab with high
quality.
2. The concrete came from ready-mix concrete stations In this study, a total of 645 data sets were collected from
with different mix designs and has been already used on- previous experiments, which were performed in the last two
site. decades of publishing these papers (Kim 2002, Qasrawi
3. First, the molds were put in 150×150×150 mm cubes 2000, Kim and Kim 2002, Hoła and Schabowicz 2005,
and cast in 3 layers; every layer compacted 25 times Nash’t et al. 2005, Soshiroda et al. 2006, Hobbs and
according to standard ASTM C31. Next, they were kept in Tchoketch Kebir 2007, Domingo and Hirose 2009, Ali-
the air for one day to properly set, the specimens were kept Benyahia et al. 2010, Atici 2011, Al-Mishhadani et al.
at an ambient temperature of 25±3C. Then, concrete was 2012, Hamidian et al. 2012, Bogas et al. 2013, Bzeni and
taken out of the molds and was put in a curing water tank at Ihsan 2013, Jain et al. 2013, Lal et al. 2013, Malek and
a suitable temperature. Kaouther 2014, Mohammed et al. 2014, Nikhil et al. 2015,
4. After a specific curing time, the samples were taken Amini et al. 2016, Azreen et al. 2016, Raju and Dharmar
out of the curing tank and kept in the air for some time for 2016, Shaik et al. 2020).
the surface to dry. The data were divided into nine inputs and three outputs
• The curing was performed by immersing the samples as follows:
in the water tank according to ASTM C31 at a • Inputs are the concrete components (i.e., cement, fly
temperature on-site according to ASTM C1064. ash, silica fume, blast furnace slag, fine aggregate,
coarse aggregate, water, and superplasticizer) and the
2.3 Schmidt hammer test age of concrete specimens.
• Outputs are the concrete compressive strength,
1. Selecting the points to be tested. rebound number, and ultrasonic pulse velocity.
2. Preparing points to be tested; before testing, any • These data are divided into 70% for training, 15% for
plasterwork or coating must be removed. validation, and 15% for testing.
3. Conducting an impact test at 5, or better 10, points of
the prepared area. Take the mean value RN of the 5 to 10
hammer readings. When calculating the mean, all the 4. Model application
individual readings of the test hammer were considered;
only obvious “off shots” are to be eliminated and replaced The network contains inputs, hidden layers, and outputs.
by a further impact test. Obvious “off shots” are the test Compressive strength, RN, and UPV are the outputs, while
hammer readings, which deviate from the mean of other the input layer contains 9 nodes representing the age of
readings by more than 5 units. concrete specimens and concrete components (i.e., cement,
4. The test was performed according to ASTM C805. fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, fly ash, silica fume, blast
furnace slag, water, and superplasticizer). The hidden layer
includes 6 nodes and a full connection between the nodes in
3. Data preparation the adjacent layers.
 Ahmed M. Tahwia, Ashraf Heniegal, Mohamed S. Elgamal and Bassam A. Tayeh

Table 3 Range and average values of the data sets

Variable Range (Min-Max) Average
X1 (Cement) kg 120 - 657 213
X2 (Fine aggregate) kg 222 – 1000 682
X3 (Coarse aggregate) kg 650 -1332 1023
X4 (Fly ash) kg 0 – 180 52
X5 (Silica fume) kg 0 – 27 0
X6 (BFS) kg 0 – 180 51
X7 (Water) kg 90 – 243 103
X8 (Superplasticizer) kg 0 – 24 0
X9 (Age) day 3- 180 56
Y1 (RN) 17 – 53 39
Y2 (UPV) m/s 3294 – 6324 5029
Y3 (Compressive strength) MPa 7 – 59 22
where Xn signifies the inputs and Yn signifies the outputs

Table 4 Model components

Neurons in the input layer: 9 neurons
Neurons in the hidden layer: 6 neurons
Fig. 1 The structure of the ANN model
Neurons in the output layer: 3 neurons
Activation function used: tansig
Type of backpropagation algorithm: trainlm

1. Type of neural network: Multilayer perceptron feed-

forward has been trained through the error back-
propagation algorithm.
2. Neurons in the input layer: Nine neurons.
3. Hidden layers: It has been found that a single hidden
layer achieved satisfactory results for many problems
(Özcan et al. 2009).
4. Neurons in the hidden layer: Six neurons were
specified from empirical criteria.
5. Neurons in the output layer: Three neurons.
As shown in Table 4: we choose Levenberg–Marquardt
Fig. 2 The training state of the ANN model
(trainlm) because Levenberg–Marquardt showed the
capability of achieving the most optimum prediction
(Asteris and Mokos 2020).
is the predicted value of the dependent variable and n is the
The model consists of three phases, including training,
number of specimens. (Nasir et al. 2020).
validation, and test. In the training procedure, the root mean
The most common learning method used for supervised
square (RMS) of the error is calculated, then
learning with feedforward neural networks (FNNs) is
backpropagated to the network. Biases and weights of the
backpropagation (BP) algorithm. The BP algorithm
connection strength between the nodes are modified during
calculates the gradient of the network’s error with respect to
the back-propagation phase such that the (RMS) is reduced
the network's modifiable weights. However, the BP
(Heniegal 2012).
algorithm may result in a movement toward the local
Three performance measures, namely R-square, root-
minimum. To overcome the local minimum problems, many
mean-square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error
methods have been proposed. A widely used one and used
(MAE), were calculated for each model for comparing their
in this study is to train a neural network more than once,
accuracy. These performance measures were calculated
starting with a random set of weights. An advantage of this
according to Eqs. (1), (2) and (3)
approach lies in the simplicity of using and applying to
∑(𝑦𝑖 −𝑦𝑖′ )2 other learning algorithms. (Atakulreka and Sutivong 2007).
𝑅 − 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 = 1 − ∑(𝑦𝑖 −𝑦)2
(1)

∑(𝑦𝑖 −𝑦𝑖′ )2
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = √ (2) 5. Results and discussion
𝑛

∑ |(𝑦𝑖 −𝑦𝑖′ )
𝑀𝐴𝐸 = (3) Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Table 5 show the results from the
𝑛
charts on the Matlab software model. Fig. 2 shows the
where y is the observed value for the dependent variable, y’ training state for the ANN model, showing that the errors
 The prediction of compressive strength and non-destructive tests of sustainable concrete by using artificial neural networks

Fig. 3 The best validation performance and mean square

error (MSE) Fig. 5 The coincidence between the output and target
variables of the validation steps
Table 5 The properties of ANN
Gradient=8088.2298, at epoch 6
Mu=10, at epoch 6
Validation Checks=6, at epoch 6
The best validation performance is 7780.4365 at epoch 0

Fig. 6 The coincidence between the output and target

variables of the test steps

Table 5 The tested inputs (concrete component and age)

Inputs
Mix
Fig. 4 The coincidence between the output and target Components (Kg) Age
No.
variables of the training steps PC Fagg Cagg FA SF BFS W SP (day)
1 270 725 1200 0 0 0 170 6.5 7
2 275 761 1155 0 0 0 180 5.4 7
are repeated 6 times after epoch 0 and the test stopped at 3 285 829 990 95 0 0 167 5.5 7
epoch 6. The epoch 0 is selected as the base and its weights 4 300 764 1170 0 0 0 166 5.4 7
are chosen as the final weights. Therefore, the validation 5 325 916 971 0 0 0 168 6.2 7
check is equal to 6 because the errors are repeated 6 times 6 330 746 1133 0 0 0 180 6 7
before terminating the process. 7 350 720 1120 0 0 0 175 6 7
Fig. 3 shows the best validation performance and mean 8 390 673 1167 0 0 0 166 6.78 7
square error (MSE) of the network, which started at a large
9 410 745 1090 0 0 0 180 8 7
value, then reduced to a small value. The chart consists of
10 420 770 1088 0 0 0 165 7.36 7
three lines for training, validation, and test. Training
11 430 749 1052 0 0 0 175 8.94 7
continues until the model reaches the point at which
training reduces the error of the network on validation. As 12 440 689 1149 0 0 0 155 9.6 7
shown in Fig. 3, the best validation performance has been 13 450 600 1140 0 0 0 175 8 7
achieved at epoch 0 after the errors are repeated 6 times. 14 460 678 1063 0 0 0 180 9.6 7
Figs. 4, 5, and 6 show the coincidence between the 15 470 730 1050 0 0 0 155 9.5 7
output and target variables of the training, validation, and 16 480 1007 728 0 0 0 168 7.5 7
test steps. The output values showed the predicted 17 490 673 1167 0 0 0 166 7 7
(compressive strength, RN, UPV) by the Matlab software where PC: cement, Fagg: fine aggregate, Cagg: coarse aggregate,
and the target values showed the measured (compressive FA: fly ash, SF: silica fume, BFS: blast furnace slag, W: water, SP:
strength, RN, UPV). The term “R2” is calculated by the superplasticizer.
 Ahmed M. Tahwia, Ashraf Heniegal, Mohamed S. Elgamal and Bassam A. Tayeh

Table 6 The experimental and predicted results of each

tested mix
Mix Experimental Results Predicted Results
No. Fcu (MPa) RN UPV (m/s) Fcu (MPa) RN UPV (m/s)
1 30.8 26.7 3730 32.5 27.1 3628
2 29.7 26.8 3780 31 27.4 3665
3 30.5 24.3 3750 32.6 24 3658
4 30.3 27 3720 31.3 27.4 3734
5 29 26 3820 31.7 27.2 3733
6 30.5 26.5 3650 31.1 27.3 3760
7 28.3 26.3 3720 30.8 27.4 3798
8 29.2 25 3780 30.5 26.8 3884
9 29.9 25.5 3960 31.2 26.3 3860 Fig. 7 Chart between Fcu experimental and Fcu predicted
10 30 27.2 3990 31.1 26.1 3910 with the same concrete mix
11 30.7 26.8 3680 32 25.6 3846
12 31.1 24.5 3750 33.1 24.1 3872
13 29.2 25.8 3900 30.4 26.2 3964
14 30.2 24.3 3790 32 25.2 3889
15 30.3 22.8 3920 33.2 24 3887
16 31 25 4155 31.8 26 3871
17 27.8 25.5 4200 29.8 25.6 4177
where RN: rebound hammer, UPV: ultrasonic pulse velocity, Fcu:
compressive strength

Table 7 The regression between Fcu experimental and Fcu

predicted
Regression Statistics Fig. 8 Chart between RN experimental and RN predicted
Multiple R 0.752171666 with the same concrete mix
R Square 0.565762215
Adjusted R Square 0.536813029 Table 8 shows the regression between RN experimental and
Standard Error 0.637478197 RN predicted
Observations 17 Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.770977516
R Square 0.59440633
Matlab software, which demonstrated the efficiency of the Adjusted R Square 0.567366752
model and, therefore, the R2 values in the three figures have Standard Error 0.792756845
confirmed the acceptable accuracies of the model in Observations 17
training, validation, and test.
As shown in the test figures, the term R2=0.99 displays Table 9 shows the regression between UPV experimental
the efficiency of the model in predicting (compressive and UPV predicted
strength, RN, UPV) and contains the nonlinear relationship
Regression Statistics
between the input variables.
Multiple R 0.68693601
5.1 Experimental validation R Square 0.471881081
Adjusted R Square 0.436673153
To test the ANN model accuracy, a group of mixes was Standard Error 119.3546892
mixed, obtained from an actual ready-mix concrete, tested Observations 17
in the concrete slab, and the results were keyed to the ANN
model; the network predicted compressive strength, RN,
and UPV for each mixture. The inputs (the mix components For Fig. 8: the correlation between RN experimental and
and age) are listed in Table and the measured and predicted RN predicted is 0.77 and the regression details as follows in
output values are listed in Table . Table 8.
When the zero values in the model are decreased, the For Fig. 9: the correlation between UPV experimental
model will provide more accurate results according to (Jain and UPV predicted is 0.69 and the regression details as
et al. 2013). follows in Table 9.
Figs. 7, 8, 9 as shown below clarified the relationships
between Fcu, RN, UPV experimental and prediction.
For Fig. 7: the correlation between Fcu experimental and 6. Conclusions
Fcu predicted is 0.75 and the regression details as follows in
Table 7. To conclude, a total of 645 data sets were collected for
 The prediction of compressive strength and non-destructive tests of sustainable concrete by using artificial neural networks
Fig. 9 Chart between UPV experimental and UPV predicted
with the same concrete mix
the concrete mixtures from previously published papers at
different curing times and test ages at 3, 7, 28, 90, and 180
days. Next, a model has been formulated on the neural
networks by the Matlab program with nine inputs and three
outputs. After that, an experimental test has been conducted
on concrete, in addition to the Schmidt hammer test, and the
UPV test to obtain the cubes compressive strength for
validation and testing on the model. The findings and
recommendations of the study can be outlined as follows:
• The ANN model showed that it is an accurate
computational model for predicting destructive and non-
destructive tests for sustainable concrete containing
pozzolanic materials.
• The ANN model showed a reliable correlation between
the input and the output variables. The ANN model’s
statistical parameter R2 is 0.99, 0.99, 0.99 of the
training, validation, and test steps, which demonstrated
good accuracy and efficiency results regarding the use
of the ANN model in predicting (compressive strength,
RN, and UPV) and showed that the feed-forward
backpropagation neural network is capable of predicting
compressive strength, RN, and UPV.
• The higher zero values of the superplasticizer, BFS, fly
ash, and silica fume, the larger prediction error and
fewer correlation parameters will probably be obtained.
• It is, therefore, recommended that new models are
formulated to decrease the zero values of the
superplasticizer, BFS, fly ash, and silica fume to adjust
the model.
References
Aflaki, E. and Moodi, F. (2017), “Laboratory tests for studying the
performance of grouted micro-fine cement”, Comput. Concrete,
20(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2017.20.2.145.
Alabduljabbar, H., Haido, J.H., Alyousef, R., Yousif, S.T.,
McConnell, J., Wakil, K. and Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020),
“Prediction of the flexural behavior of corroded concrete beams
using combined method”, Struct., 25, 1000-1008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.03.057.
Al-Mishhadani, S.A., Joni, H.H. and Radhi, E.M.S. (2012),
“Effect of age on nondestructive tests results for existing
concrete”, Iraqi J. Mech. Mater. Eng., 12(4), 630-646.
Ali-Benyahia, K., Kenai, S. and Ghrici, M. (2010), “Correlation
between nondestructive and destructive tests of low strength
concrete”, 37th IAHS World Congress on Housing Science.
Amini, K., Jalalpour, M. and Delatte, N. (2016), “Advancing
concrete strength prediction using non-destructive testing:
Developmentand verification of a generalizable model”, Constr.
Build. Mater., 102, 762-768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.131
Asteris, P.G. and Mokos, V.G. (2020), “Concrete compressive
strength using a rtificial neural networks”, Neural Comput.
Appl., 32(15), 11807-11826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-
019-04663-2.
Atakulreka, A. and Sutivong, D. (2007), “Avoiding local minima
in feedforward neural networks by simultaneous learning”,
Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Atici, U. (2011), “Prediction of the strength of mineral admixture
concrete using multivariable regression analysis and an artificial
neural network”, Exp. Syst. Appl., 38(8), 9609-9618.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.01.156.
Ayat, H., Kellouche, Y., Ghrici, M. and Boukhatem, B. (2018),
“Compressive strength prediction of limestone filler concrete
using artificial neural networks”, Adv. Comput. Des., 3(3), 289-
302. https://doi.org/10.12989/acd.2018.3.3.289.
Azreen, M.N., Pauzi, I.M., Nasharuddin, I., Haniza, M.M.,
Akasyah, J., Karsono, A.D. and Lei, V.Y. (2016), “Prediction of
concrete compression strength using ultrasonic pulse velocity”,
AIP Conf. Proc., 1704(1), 040006.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4940092.
Banu, S.S., Kartikeyan, J. and Jayabalan, P. (2020), “Influence of
using agrowaste as partial replacement in cement on the
compressive strength of concrete-A statistical approach”,
Constr. Build. Mater., 250, 118746.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118746
Bogas, J.A., Gomes, M.G. and Gomes, A. (2013), “Compressive
strength evaluation of structural lightweight concrete by non
destructive ultrasonic pulse velocity method”, Ultrasonic.,
53(5), 962-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2012.12.012.
Bzeni, D.K. and Ihsan, M.A. (2013), “Estimating strength of SCC
using non-destructive combined method”, 3rd International
Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and
Technologies.
Choi, H. and Azari, H. (2017), “Guided wave analysis of air-
coupled impact-echo in concrete slab”, Comput. Concrete,
20(3), 257-262. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2017.20.3.257.
Diab, A.M., Elyamany, H.E., Abd Elmoaty, M. and Shalan, A.H.
(2014), “Prediction of concrete compressive strength due to
long term sulfate attack using neural network”, Alex. Eng. J.,
53(3), 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2014.04.002.
Domingo, R. and Hirose, S. (2009), “Correlation between concrete
strength and combined nondestructive tests for concrete using
high-early strength cement”, The Sixth Regional Symposium on
Infrastructure Development.
Hamidian, M., Shariati, A., Khanouki, M.A., Sinaei, H., Toghroli,
A. and Nouri, K. (2012), “Application of Schmidt rebound
hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity techniques for structural
health monitoring”, Scientif. Res. Essay., 7(21), 1997-2001.
https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE11.1387.
Heniegal, A.M. (2012), “Numerical Analysis for predicting of self
compacting concrete mixtures using artificial neural networks”,
J. Engng. Sci., 40(6), 1575-1597.
Hobbs, B. and Tchoketch Kebir, M. (2007), “Non-destructive
testing techniques for the forensic engineering investigation of
reinforced concrete buildings”, Forensic Sci. Int., 167(2), 167-
172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.06.065.
Hoła, J. and Schabowicz, K. (2005), “Application of artificial
neural networks to determine concrete compressive strength
 Ahmed M. Tahwia, Ashraf Heniegal, Mohamed S. Elgamal and Bassam A. Tayeh

based on non‐destructive tests”, J. Civil Eng. Manage., 11(1), competitive algorithm”, Comput. Concrete, 22(4), 355-363.
23-32. https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2018.22.4.355.
Jain, A., Kathuria, A., Kumar, A., Verma, Y. and Murari, K. Sarıdemir, M. (2009), “Predicting the compressive strength of
(2013), “Combined use of non-destructive tests for assessment mortars containing metakaolin by artificial neural networks and
of strength of concrete in structure”, Procedia Eng., 54, 241- fuzzy logic”, Adv. Eng. Softw., 40(9), 920-927.
251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.12.008.
Khademi, F. and Jamal, S.M. (2016), “Predicting the 28 days Shariati, M., Mafipour, M.S., Haido, J.H., Yousif, S.T., Toghroli,
compressive strength of concrete using artificial neural A., Trung, N.T. and Shariati, A. (2020), “Identification of the
network”, I-manager’s J. Civil Eng., 6, 1. most influencing parameters on the properties of corroded
Kim, H.J., Park, T.W. and Chung, L. “Intergration of neural concrete beams using an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference
networks with NDE for concrete strength prediction”, System (ANFIS)”, Steel Compos. Struct., 34(1), 155-170.
Kim, J.I. and Kim, D.K. (2002), “Application of neural networks https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2020.34.1.155.
for estimation of concrete strength”, KSCE J. Civil Eng., 6(4), Soshiroda, T., Voraputhaporn, K. and Nozaki, Y. (2006), “Early-
429-438. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:3(257). stage inspection of concrete quality in structures by combined
Kellouche, Y., Boukhatem, B., Ghrici, M. and Tagnit-Hamou, A. nondestructive method”, Mater. Struct., 39(2), 149.
(2019), “Exploring the major factors affecting fly-ash concrete https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9007-6.
carbonation using artificial neural network”, Neur. Comput. Topçu, İ.B. and Sarıdemir, M. (2007), “Prediction of properties of
Appl., 31(2), 969-988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-3052-2. waste AAC using artificial neural network”, Comput. Mater.
Lal, T., Sharma, S. and Naval, S. (2013), “Reliability of non- Sci., 41(1), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2007.03.010.
destructive tests for hardened concrete strength”, Int. J. Eng. Toutanji, H., Delatte, N., Aggoun, S., Duval, R. and Danson, A.
Res. Technol., 2, 1-7. (2004), “Effect of supplementary cementitious materials on the
Liu, G. and Zheng, J. (2019), “Prediction model of compressive compressive strength and durability of short-term cured
strength development in concrete containing four kinds of concrete”, Cement Concrete Res., 34(2), 311-319.
gelled materials with the artificial intelligence method”, Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.08.017.
Sci., 9(6), 1039. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061039. Xu, C., Zhang, X., Haido, J.H., Mehrabi, P., Shariati, A.,
Malek, J. and Kaouther, M. (2014), “Destructive and non- Mohamad, E.T., ... & Wakil, K. (2019), “Using genetic
destructive testing of concrete structures”, Jordan J. Civil Eng., algorithms method for the paramount design of reinforced
159(3269), 1-10. concrete structures”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 71(5), 503-513.
Mohammed, B.S., Abdullahi, M. and Hoong, C.K. (2014), https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2019.71.5.503.
“Statistical models for concrete containing wood chipping as
partial replacement to fine aggregate”, Constr. Build. Mater., 55,
13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.021. HK
Nash’t, I.H., A’bour, S.H. and Sadoon, A.A. (2005), “Finding an
unified relationship between crushing strength of concrete and
non destructive tests”, Middle East Nondestructive Testing
Conference & Exhibition, Citeseer.
Nasir, M., Gazder, U., Maslehuddin, M., Al-Amoudi, O.S.B. and
Syed, I.A. (2020), “Prediction of properties of concrete cured
under hot weather using multivariate regression and ANN
models”, Arab. J. Sci. Eng., 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04403-y.
Neville, A.M. (1995), Properties of Concrete, Longman, London.
Nikhil, M.V., Minal, B.R., Deep, C.S., Vijay, G.D., Vishal, T.S.
and Shweta, P. (2015), “The use of combined non destructive
testing in the concrete strength assessment from laboratory
specimens and existing buildings”, ICBCCE-2015.
Özcan, F., Atiş, C.D., Karahan, O., Uncuoğlu, E. and Tanyildizi,
H. (2009), “Comparison of artificial neural network and fuzzy
logic models for prediction of long-term compressive strength
of silica fume concrete”, Adv. Eng. Softw., 40(9), 856-863.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.01.005.
Pann, K.S., Yen, T., Tang, C.W. and Lin, T.D. (2003), “New
strength model based on water-cement ratio and capillary
porosity”, ACI Mater. J., 100(4), 311-318.
Philips, J. and Mano, R.R. (2016), “Experimental investigation on
mechanical properties of polypropylene fibre incorporated
concrete with silica fume”, Int. J. Civil Eng. Technol., 7, 5.
Qasrawi, H.Y. (2000), “Concrete strength by combined
nondestructive methods simply & reliably predicted”, Cement
Concrete Res., 30(5), 739-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-
8846(00)00226-X.
Raju, S. and Dharmar, B. (2016), “Mechanical properties of
concrete with copper slag and fly ash by DT and NDT”,
Periodica Polytechnica Civil Eng., 60(3), 313-322.
https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.7904.
Sadowski, L., Nikoo, M. and Nikoo, M. (2018), “Concrete
compressive strength prediction using the imperialist