Hindawi

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Volume 2022, Article ID 4528264, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4528264

Research Article
Modelling of Modulus of Elasticity of Low-Calcium-Based
Geopolymer Concrete Using Regression Analysis

Ali A. Khalaf and Katalin Kopecskó

Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 1111 Budapest, Hungary

Correspondence should be addressed to Ali A. Khalaf; ali.abdulhasan.khalaf@emk.bme.hu

Received 14 September 2021; Revised 19 April 2022; Accepted 25 April 2022; Published 19 May 2022

Academic Editor: Ismail DEMIR

Copyright © 2022 Ali A. Khalaf and Katalin Kopecskó. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

Despite the unremitting efforts to model the modulus of elasticity of low-calcium-based geopolymer concrete, the state-of-the-art
models need much improvement to reduce the error signals and increase the reliability. This study represents a comprehensive
regression analysis to model the modulus of elasticity of low-calcium-based geopolymer concrete in terms of its compressive
strength. The proposed model’s assumptions are based on taking into account the chemical composition and compressive strength
class and considering the normal density of concrete. The modelling is based on 67 different mix-design samples collected from
peer-reviewed literature, which are divided into two groups. The first group consists of 59 samples that are used to construct the
proposed model, while the second group consists of 8 samples that are used to test the validity of the proposed model. The analysis
showed that the proposed model gives the root mean squared error value (RMSE) of 3.122 GPa and the mean absolute percentage
error value (MAPE) of 15.0%. Therefore, the proposed model gives 41% and 52.2% reductions in RMSE and MAPE, respectively,
from the state-of-the-art model in the literature. Furthermore, other statistical parameters to evaluate the goodness of fitness of the
proposed model have been considered, such as the relative root mean squared error (RRMSE) (15.5%), the coefficient of de-
termination (R-squared) (0.773), and the coefficient of correlation (R) (0.88); all of which indicated that the goodness of fitness is
good and the proposed model has a high correlation to the actual values. Applying the proposed model in future applications will
help reduce the time and cost of geopolymer production, as the proposed model has significantly reduced the error signals.

1. Introduction utilised in the process of geopolymer production, which help

Geopolymers are three-dimensional networks of silico-
aluminate structures produced by reactivating amorphous
aluminosilicate (precursor or raw material) in the presence
of alkali metal cation (alkali activation solution) through a
process that is so-called geopolymerization [1–4]. Geo-
polymer concrete is considered an environmentally friendly
construction material because its manufacturing emits much
less carbon dioxide (CO2) gas than the manufacturing of
Portland cement concrete [5, 6]. Studies stated that 1-ton
production of cement produces approximately 1 ton of
carbon dioxide (CO2). Moreover, many industrial wastes
and by-product materials such as red mud, slag, mine
tailings, and volcanic pumice ash have been successfully
to produce sustainable construction materials [7–13].
Therefore, geopolymer binders can be an efficient alternative
to Portland cement in the concrete industry [1, 2, 5].
Machine learning techniques have been proven to be
valuable and beneficial in civil engineering applications for
the prediction of the mechanical properties of geopolymer
concrete due to the fact that these techniques, such as neural
networks, genetic programming, linear regression, and
nonlinear regression, have the ability to capture the complex
behaviour [14–17]. In practical applications of concrete
structures, the most important feature to evaluate concrete
strength is compressive strength. All other mechanical
properties, such as the modulus of elasticity, are expressed as
functions of compressive strength [18]. Machine learning
2 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
techniques help establish a functional approximation so-
lution with acceptable error from the unknown relationship
based on experimental observations to eventually express an
approximate mathematical model between the dependent
and independent variables [17, 19]. The nonlinear regression
analysis has the advantages of expressing more complex
relationships and produces a visualised discrete relationship
that is easy to comprehend and apply [19].
Young’s modulus of elasticity plays a pivotal role in
evaluating the load-deformation behaviour of concrete,
which describes the reversible part of the stress-strain curve
[20]. In engineering practices such as ACI 318 [21] and the
CEB FIP model [22], prediction models are developed to
calculate the modulus of elasticity of concrete instead of
testing each time; these models are established based on
empirical equations depending on historical tests [21, 22].
Since Portland cement concrete practice manuals and design
codes have been instituted over decades, most cement al-
ternatives in the primary stage are compared to cement
properties to examine their validation [23]. Despite that,
these prediction models of the modulus of elasticity of
Portland cement concrete overestimate the results when
used for geopolymer concrete [24]. Moreover, the results of
the modulus of elasticity of these models for geopolymer
concrete are smaller than the results for Portland cement
concrete, even when the compressive strength results of
geopolymer concrete are higher [25]. Consequently, it has
been found that high-strength concrete prediction models
are in agreement margins when applied to high-strength
geopolymer concrete [24, 26]. However, this finding did not
solve the problem because the predicted modulus of elas-
ticity values will be far from the experimental values when
the compressive strength decreases [27].
The other approach to research work is to build a new
model to predict the modulus of elasticity of geopolymer
concrete. Most researchers have constructed their models
only based on their experiment results [24, 28–33]. In
return, these models seem to be fit only for a limited range
of compressive strength. Some researchers considered the
previous results to build the prediction models [27, 34–37].
However, these models also have flaws. The prediction
model proposed by Prachasaree et al. and Xie et al. had
neither been tested against experimental data nor provided
statistics to assure their reliability. In contrast, the pre-
diction model proposed by Prachasaree et al. [27] improved
their previous model [35]; however, the new model pro-
vided only a small difference in statistics compared to the
prediction model proposed by Nath and Sarker [34]; the
error percentage is still considerably high. In the con-
struction of prediction models proposed by Nath and
Sarker and Cui et al. [34, 36], only a few data were selected
without clarifying why those few data particularly have
been chosen and leaving the rest of the previous data, which
made these models subjected to bias. Therefore, it is
necessary to build a prediction model based on firm and
explicit assumptions by incorporating all the data of in-
terest, giving engineers a clear idea when applying this
model in practical applications.
2. Research Significance
Many researchers have introduced prediction models for the
modulus of elasticity of low-calcium-based geopolymer
concrete in terms of its compressive strength
[27, 30, 31, 34, 37, 38]. However, the error percentage is still
relatively high; for example, ACI 318 [21] determined the
MAPE in the range of ±20.0%, while the best performance
model in the literature, Prachasaree et al. [27], has an MAPE
value of 31.4%. Thus, this research aimed to establish a
reliable regression model for the modulus of elasticity, Ec, of
low-calcium-based geopolymer concrete in terms of its
compressive strength, fc′, by reducing the error signals and
increasing the correlation between the proposed model and
the actual values. The modelling process was carried out on
all applicable data collected from peer-reviewed literature,
and the proposed model was built with a 95% confidence
interval based on explicit and firm assumptions. It is re-
ported that increasing the compressive strength increases the
quality of other properties of concrete and, more impor-
tantly, the modulus of elasticity [18]. Unfortunately, with an
increase in compressive strength, there is a corresponding
increase in the cost of geopolymer production [39].
Therefore, by reducing the error signals of the proposed
model of modulus of elasticity, its application increases the
safety margins and controls the cost management.
3. The Proposed Model Assumptions
As a first step prior to analysis, the margins and charac-
teristics of the population and samples should be clearly
determined and described to ensure that the prediction
model will be representative. Therefore, the following as-
sumptions are constructed:
(1) Geopolymers can behave differently because of the
chemistry of the binding material. Basically, geo-
polymers can be divided into two main groups,
namely, low-calcium-based geopolymers, CaO <8%
[37], and high-calcium-based geopolymers, CaO
≥8% [37]. This division is due to the difference in the
reaction mechanism. In low-calcium-based geo-
polymers, the reaction mechanism is classified as
pozzolanic, while high-calcium-based geopolymers
undergo hydraulic reactions as well [37]. The gel type
produced in the high-calcium geopolymers, such as
ground granulated blast furnace slag based geo-
polymers, is C-A-S-H. On the other hand, low-
calcium geopolymers such as class F fly ash based
geopolymers, the gel type of N-A-S-H [40, 41], are
produced. Therefore, it should be noted that only
low-calcium-based geopolymers will be dealt with in
the formulation of this model.
(2) The type of concrete should be normal unit weight
and normal compressive strength concrete. High-
strength concretes are very rigid materials with high
modulus of elasticity values and with very low elastic
deformation. When the specified design compressive
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
strength is 55 MPa or more, concrete is considered
high-strength and exhibits different material prop-
erties [42]. Therefore, the samples with a specified
design compressive strength in the range of 55 MPa
or more will be excluded from the proposed model’s
formulation and the future applications of this
model.
(3) Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity
values are the mean values of specimens [21]. In cases
where the authors give the values of specimens for
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity, the
sample means are taken.
(4) The cylindrical compressive strength, fc′, will be
related to the modulus of elasticity, Ec, in the for-
mulation of the proposed model. In cases where the
authors gave the cubic compressive strength and
performed the modulus of elasticity on cylindrical
specimens, a correlation factor for the normal
compressive strength should be considered [43]. All
samples should be at 28 days of age, or they are
reported to have an equivalent hardening rate to 28
days of age [44].
(5) The confidence interval that can be seen in the lit-
erature is from 99.9% to 90.0%. However, it is tra-
ditionally constructed as 95.0% [45]. This value,
95.0%, will be set as a confidence interval in the
construction of the proposed model.
(6) The software SPSS version 23 will be employed to
perform the statistical work of this research.
4. Data Collection, Classification, and Testing
The data collected from peer-reviewed literature consist of
67 different mix-design samples, in accordance with the
aforementioned assumptions, which are displayed in Ta-
ble 1. Most of the data (59 samples, analysing data) are used
to construct the proposed model. In comparison, some data
(8 samples, testing data) are selected to be testing samples to
examine the goodness of fitness and compare the proposed
model to the common and most recent models.
4.1. Testing the Analysing Data for Normality. The data of the
samples are considered representative of the population
when they follow the same distribution. According to the
central limit theorem [52], most natural and physical
phenomena follow a normal distribution. As a result, the
data should be checked for normal distribution. The best
technique to perform the normality test is the quantile-
quantile plot [53]. The outcome of the normality check is
shown in Figure 1 for both the compressive strength, fc′, in
MPa and the modulus of elasticity, Ec, in GPa. Since the data
adhered to the straight line, the data are normally distributed
for the independent variable, the compressive strength, and
the dependent variable, the modulus of elasticity. Therefore,
these samples are considered representative of the pop-
ulations. The mean values of compressive strength and
modulus of elasticity are 36.79 MPa and 20.284 GPa,
3
respectively, while the standard deviation values are
12.15 MPa and 6.55 GPa, respectively.
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Initial Modelling. The first step of the modelling is to
investigate the proper relationship that governs and fits the
modulus of elasticity, Ec, in terms of the corresponding
compressive strength, fc′. This step can be accomplished by
running the analysing data in the SPSS software. The analysis
is performed as shown in the flowchart in Figure 2. The
results of the analysis are shown in Table 2. The results show
that the highest value of the coefficient of determination, R-
squared, corresponds to the power relationship, equal to
0.809, with initial values of constants equal to 1.094 and
0.809. The p values are ≤ 0.001; thus, the variables are
statistically significant and related. Therefore, the governing
equation of the modulus of elasticity is mathematically
expressed as
Ec � a ∗ f′b
c ,
(1)
where Ec is the modulus of elasticity in GPa, fc′ is the cy-
lindrical compressive strength in MPa, and a and b are
constants. This relationship complies with the form of ACI
318-14 and most of the other previous models in the lit-
erature [21].
5.2. Final Modelling. After selecting the proper governing
equation and its initial values, the final model can be ob-
tained by running these results in SPSS software by following
the flowchart shown in Figure 3. The results of the analysis
are shown in Table 3. The final values of model parameters, a
and b, are 1.088 and 0.815, respectively. The determination
coefficient, R-squared, of the model is 0.773.
The final modelling formula is expressed as
Ec � 1.088 ∗ f′0.815
c , (2)
where Ec is the modulus of elasticity in GPa and fc′ is the
cylindrical compressive strength in MPa.
Both confidence bands and prediction bands are con-
structed by applying equations (3) and (4), respectively, with
a 95% probability [54, 55].
􏽳������������ 􏽳�������������
2
􏽐 Y − YPred 􏼁 1 (X − X)2 (3)
YPred. ± t0.05 · + ,
n−2 n 􏽐(X − X)2
􏽳������������ 􏽳����������������
2
⎢ 􏽐 Y − YPred 􏼁 ⎥⎥⎤ 1 (X − X)2
YPred. ± t0.05 ⎢⎡⎣1 + ⎦· 1+ + ,
n−2 n 􏽐(X − X)2
(4)
where YPred is the predicted value of the dependent variable,
t is the critical value for 95% of probability, Y is the true value
of the dependent variable, n is the number of samples, and X
is the mean value of the independent variable of X.
The relationship between the compressive strength, fc′,
and modulus of elasticity of low-calcium-based geopolymer
concrete, Ec, is described in Figure 4 with the corresponding
4 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Table 1: Data collected to generate the regression analysis and test the proposed model.
Sample ID Reference fc′ (MPa) Ec (GPa) Remarks
M26 [24] 44.0 23.00
Solution N 31.7 11.90
[25] The sample means have been taken
Solution W 41.5 17.10
4 40.4 28.60
5 47.6 29.48
6 46.7 29.36
7 46.8 28.52
8 46.1 26.46
10 47.4 25.64
11 12.2 7.04
12 12.8 6.81
13 20.7 7.96
14 [30] 10.3 7.46
15 46.6 28.74
16 5.5 4.62
19 43.4 25.61
26 20.2 11.27
27 52.6 28.09
28 32.5 22.81
29 23.4 13.18
30 22.7 12.31
32 36.8 24.73
U1 52.2 29.13
U2 [46] 54 32.10
U3 53.8 30.62
GPC0 [47] 45.3 24.00
GPC1–60 50.8 25.10
GPC1–90 54.4 25.40
GPC2–60 52.04 21.90
GPC2–90 [48] 53.6 25.50
GPC3–60 46.34 22.80
GPC3–90 49.73 22.60
GPC3–120 52.43 28.00
A40S00 25.6 17.40
A40S10 38.3 22.60
A40S15 46.6 24.60
A35S00 32.5 19.80
A35S10 33.3 19.20
A40P06 [34] 43.2 23.20
A40P08 34.4 20.60
A35P06 35.3 21.40
A40C02 42 22.40
A40C03 41.5 21.60
A35C02 36.8 22.20
M-0 26.8 11.84
M-1 29.4 14.79 A correlation factor has been used to
[49]
M-2 30.8 15.44 convert cubic strength to cylindrical
M-3 32.8 16.93
1 35.4 24.29
2 29 21.25
3 46.2 21.19
4 36.1 18.47
5 40.5 18.95
6 41.4 18.87
[36] The sample means have been taken
7 33.5 16.74
8 39.1 18.2
9 35 16.97
10 37.1 17.78
11 37.7 16.99
12 37.2 17.9
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 5

Table 1: Continued.
Sample ID Reference fc′ (MPa) Ec (GPa) Remarks
M1 12.4 13.36 A correlation factor has been used to
[33]
M2 13.7 14.3 convert cubic strength to cylindrical
GP-1 [50] 15.024 7
P1 43.76 25.8
A correlation factor has been used to
P2 27.92 21.5
[51] convert cubic strength to cylindrical
P3 40.08 24.6
P4 38.16 23

70 40

60
Quantiles of Input Sample

Quantiles of Input Sample

30
50

40
20
30

20
10
10

0 0
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Standard Normal Quantiles Standard Normal Quantiles
(a) (b)

Figure 1: Normality distribution check: (i) compressive strength, fc′ (MPa), and (ii) modulus of elasticity, Ec (GPa). (a) Normal Q-Q plot of
fc′(MPa). (b) Normal Q-Q plot of Ec (GPa).

Analysing data Analyse Regression

Define variables
Run the Curve estimation
analysis Select all
the available
relationships

Figure 2: The initial modelling process in SPSS.

Table 2: Model summary and parameter estimates (the dependent variable is Ec_GPa, and the independent variable is Fc_MPa).
Equation R-squared p value Constant, a b1 b2 b3
Linear 0.772 ≤0.001 2.977 0.471
Logarithmic 0.723 ≤0.001 −21.513 11.869
Inverse 0.531 ≤0.001 26.480 −183.139
Quadratic 0.773 ≤0.001 1.997 0.544 −0.001
Cubic 0.775 ≤0.001 4.754 0.177 0.012 0.000
Compound 0.769 ≤0.001 6.204 1.031
Power 0.808 ≤0.001 1.094 0.809
S 0.687 ≤0.001 3.394 -13.425
Growth 0.769 ≤0.001 1.825 0.030
Exponential 0.769 ≤0.001 6.204 0.030
Logistic 0.769 ≤0.001 0.161 0.970
6 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Analysing data Analyse Regression

Define variables
Run the Define parameters Nonlinear
analysis
Define model
expression

Figure 3: The process of the final modelling in SPSS.

Table 3: Results of final modelling for the dependent variable Ec_GPa.

Iteration historyb
Parameters
Iteration no.a Residual sum of squares
a b
1.0 581.108 1.094 0.809
1.1 575.086 1.088 0.815
2.0 575.086 1.088 0.815
2.1 575.086 1.088 0.815
3.0 575.086 1.088 0.815
3.1 575.086 1.088 0.815
Parameter estimates
95% confidence interval
Parameter Estimate Std. error Lower
Upper bound
bound
a 1.088 0.308 0.470 1.705
B 0.815 0.076 0.662 0.967
ANOVAc
Source Sum of squares df Mean squares
Regression 23632.371 2 12946.106
Residual 523.877 57 10.089
Uncorrected total 24156.249 59
Corrected total 2294.661 58
Derivatives are calculated numerically. aMajor iteration number is displayed to the left of the decimal, and the minor iteration number is to the right of the
decimal. bRun stopped after 6 model evaluations and 3 derivative evaluations because the relative reduction between successive residual sums of squares is at
most SSCON � 1.000E − 8. cR-squared � 1 − (residual sum of squares)/(corrected sum of squares) � 0.773.

95% confidence bands and 95% prediction bands. It can be
seen that the 95% confidence bands are tight and narrow,
confining the proposed model through a long distance with
only a slight expansion at the edges. This means that the true
regression line is very close to the proposed model line with a
probability of 95% [55]. The proposed model also performs
well in terms of prediction with a 95% probability. The 95%
prediction bands confine all the experimental data with
much inside space between the outer experimental data and
the prediction bands.
The root mean squared error (RMSE) of the proposed
equation is equal to 3.122. This value is much lower than the
results of the most recent findings, Lee and Lee [31], Nath
and Sarker [34], and Prachasaree et al. [27], which are equal
to 8.900, 6.01, and 5.260, respectively. Therefore, the pro-
posed model gives a 41% reduction of RMSE from the least
error model [27]. The mean absolute percentage error
(MAPE) of the proposed equation is equal to 15.00%, which
is much lower than the results in the most recent findings,
Lee and Lee [31], Nath and Sarker [34], and Prachasaree
et al.[27], which are equal to 40.2%, 35.0%, and 31.4%,
respectively. Therefore, the proposed model gives a 52.2%
reduction in MAPE from the least error model, Prachasaree
et al. [27].
Moreover, the data have been run by neural networks in
the SPSS software. The optimised neural network archi-
tecture was one hidden layer with two neurons for the
multilayer perceptron neural network type. The activation
function for the hidden layer was the hyperbolic tangent. The
results of the neural network analysis have yielded an R-
squared value of 0.752 and an RMSE value of 4.764 MPa. As
a result, the neural network results are comparable to the
proposed model but with less accuracy since the RMSE and
R-squared values are 3.122 MPa and 0.773 for the proposed
model in this study.
5.3. Error Evaluation. In addition to the RMSE, R-squared,
and MAPE criteria, other error evaluation criteria such as
the correlation coefficient (R), mean absolute error (MAE),
relative squared error (RSE), and relative root mean squared
error (RRMSE) have been calculated as recommended by
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 7

Ec = 1.088(f′c)0.815 Table 4: Statistical parameters to evaluate the goodness of fitness of

40 R2 = 0.773 the proposed model.
Statistical parameter Value
Elastic modulus, Ec, in GPa.

30 R 0.880
R-squared 0.773
RMSE 3.122
20
MAE 2.632
RSE 0.290
10 MAPE 0.150
RRMSE 0.155

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
8.00
Compressive strength, f′c, in MPa.
6.00
Experimental data 95% prediction bands
Proposed model 95% confidence bands 4.00

Figure 4: The relationship between compressive strength, fc′, and 2.00

Residuals
modulus of elasticity, Ec, of geopolymer concrete. R2 = 0.0002
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
-2.00
Khan et al. [56] and Li et al. [57], and the results are shown in
-4.00
Table 4. The R and R-squared are indications of the cor-
relation between the proposed model and the actual values of -6.00
the modulus of elasticity of low-calcium geopolymer con-
-8.00
crete. The closer the values are to 1.0 of the R-squared for a Fitted values
model, the higher the variation by the independent variable Figure 5: Distribution of the residuals against fitted values.
is reflected [56]. When the R of a model is greater than 0.8,
then the model is highly correlated [56]. The proposed
model showed R and R-squared values equal to 0.88 and 5.4. Testing the Proposed Model against Overfitting and
0.773, respectively. As a result, the proposed model has a Comparison with the Previous Models. The testing data, 8
high correlation and represents a high percentage of vari- samples separated earlier from the collected data, are
ation. On the other hand, RMSE, MAPE, RSE, and RRMSE employed to evaluate the proposed model against overfitting
are evaluation criteria for the error of a model, and they and its advantage over the previous models described below:
reflect the deviation of the predicted value from the actual
Hardjito et al. [38]:

values [58]. The proposed model is very close to the actual
values, as it has only 2.632 MPa and deviates only 3.122 MPa
Ec  2707 fc′ + 5300, (5)
on average in terms of MAE and RMSE, respectively. The
model accuracy is also expressed by the RRMSE criterion.
When RRMSE <10%, a model is classified as excellent, where Ec and fc′ are in MPa.
10 < RRMSE < 20 is good, 20 < RRMSE < 30 is fair, and Diaz and Eleazar [30]:
RRMSE >30 is poor [58]. Interestingly, the proposed model
Ec  580 fc′, (6)
demonstrated 15.5% of RRMSE, which is classified as good.
Moreover, the error of the proposed model can be
where Ec and fc′ are in MPa.
evaluated by plotting the residuals against the fitted values of
the dependent variable. The residuals are the differences Lee and Lee [31]:
between the experimental values and the predicted values 
3
Ec  5300 fc′, (7)
obtained by the proposed model. The fitted values are the
values predicted by the proposed model. It can be seen from
Figure 5 that the residuals are scattered in a symmetrical and where Ec and fc′ are in MPa.
balanced way about the horizontal axis. Moreover, the outer Nath and Sarker [34]:
points of the residuals perform almost a circle shape. This 
distribution confirms that the residuals are independent of Ec  3.51 fc′, (8)
each other and randomly distributed around the centreline
[54]. The determination coefficient, R-squared, is calculated where Ec is in GPa and fc′ is in MPa.
to ensure this situation. It is found to be almost equal to zero Xie et al. [37]:
(0.0002). That means that the residuals are independent of 
each other. Therefore, the goodness of fitness of the pro- Ec  3.65 fc′, (9)
posed model is very well.
8 Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

Table 5: The results of the comparison between the previous models and the proposed model.
Sample fc′ Ec (Gpa) Equation (5)/ Equation (6)/ Equation (7)/ Equation (8)/ Equation (9)/ Equation Equation (2)/
ID (Mpa) exp. exp. exp. exp. exp. exp. (10)/exp. exp.
19 43.40 25.61 0.90 0.98 0.73 0.90 0.94 1.02 0.92
26 20.20 11.27 1.55 1.04 1.28 1.40 1.46 1.31 1.12
U2 54.00 32.10 0.78 0.98 0.62 0.80 0.84 0.96 0.88
GPC160 50.80 25.10 0.98 1.17 0.78 1.00 1.04 1.18 1.06
A35P06 35.30 21.40 1.00 0.96 0.81 0.97 1.01 1.05 0.93
M-2 30.80 15.44 1.32 1.16 1.08 1.26 1.31 1.31 1.15
3 46.2 21.19 1.12 1.26 0.90 1.13 1.17 1.30 1.17
4 36.10 18.47 1.17 1.13 0.95 1.14 1.19 1.24 1.10
Max. 1.55 1.26 1.28 1.40 1.46 1.31 1.17
Min. 0.78 0.96 0.62 0.80 0.84 0.96 0.88

where Ec is in GPa and fc′ is in MPa.

35.0
Prachasaree et al. [27]:
Ec  1.55  fc′ ,
3/4
(10)

where Ec is in GPa and fc′ is in MPa. 25.0

The predicted values of modulus of elasticity are cal-
culated by the models from equations (2) and (5)–(10), and
the results are presented in Table 5.
The results show that equation (5) overpredicts the
modulus of elasticity. The predicted value of the modulus
of elasticity reached 55% of overprediction. The authors
did not take into account the compressive strength class in
the development of their model [38]. Equation (6) gives
only a 26% overprediction. This result is because the
author developed equation (6) depending on relatively
large data. However, the error percentage value did not
reach the best possible value because the author did not
take into account the chemical composition. The author
treated the class F fly ash and class C fly ash the same,
while the first mentioned is low-calcium fly ash and the
latest is high-calcium fly ash [30]. Equation (7) shows 38%
of underprediction. The authors only included their ex-
perimental data, which were relatively a few. Moreover,
their experimental data were mixed with low-calcium and
high-calcium precursors [31]. Equation (8) overpredicts
the testing data by up to 40%. Although the authors in-
cluded some data from previous studies, the error per-
centage was still relatively high. It was noticed that the
authors did not consider the compressive strength class
[34]. However, their data were not sufficient to generate a
model with a low percentage of error. Although equation
(9) was introduced after equation (8), it did not reduce the
error percentage. It overpredicts the testing data by up to
46% [37]. Equation (10) shows a 31% overprediction. The
authors took into account a wide range of data from the
literature to generate their model, but they included low-
calcium based geopolymer and high-compressive strength
data [27]. Therefore, they did not come up with the best
possible value of the error percentage.
All previous models present a considerably high
percentage of error. Moreover, they tend to either over-
predict or underpredict the modulus of elasticity values.
On the contrary, the proposed model shows a
Ec (GPa)
15.0
5.0
15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 55.0
f′c (MPa)
Ec_Exp. (Gpa)
Proposed_Model
(±) 15% bands
Figure 6: The proposed model and ±15% bands against the testing
data and Ec_Exp (GPa).
considerably low percentage of error. The maximum
overprediction is +17%, which is very close to the MAPE
value (15%). On the other hand, the minimum prediction
is −12% of the error percentage, which is very close to the
MAPE as well; therefore, the proposed model gives
overprediction and underprediction of 15% on average.
This means that the proposed model evidently shows
consistency in terms of overprediction and under-
prediction. Therefore, the upper and lower bands of ±15%
are constructed versus the testing data. As shown in
Figure 6, all testing data were confined between the upper
and lower bands. Therefore, the proposed model is valid
for the application of future data and it is not overfitted.
6. Conclusions
A comprehensive regression analysis of the modulus of
elasticity of low-calcium-based geopolymer concrete has
been conducted on 59 different mix-design samples and
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
tested by other 8 different mix-design samples; all are col-
lected from the peer-reviewed literature based on firm as-
sumptions such as classifying the geopolymers as low-
calcium and specifying the strength class and density of
concrete. Therefore, the following conclusions are drawn:
(i) The proposed model performs very well in pre-
dicting the modulus of elasticity when taking into
account the chemical composition in terms of low-
and high-calcium contents and compressive
strength class. It reduced RMSE from ±5.260 GPa to
±3.122 GPa and MAPE from 31.4% to 15.0%
compared to the best performance model found in
the literature described by Prachasaree et al. [27].
Therefore, the proposed model gives a 41% and
52.2% reduction of RMSE and MAPE, respectively.
(ii) The proposed model has a high correlation with the
actual values since the value of R (0.88) > 0.8.
(iii) The goodness of fitness of the proposed model is
characterised as good since its RRMSE (15.5)
< 20.0%.
7. Future Recommendations
This comprehensive regression analysis study has yielded a
reliable proposed model to predict and visualise the rela-
tionship between the modulus of elasticity of low-calcium-
based geopolymer concrete and its compressive strength. It
is recommended to utilise the proposed model in the pre-
diction of the modulus of elasticity if and only if the basic
assumptions of deriving the proposed model equation,
which are stated in Section 3, are met.
Data Availability
The data used to support the findings of this research study
are included within the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
The Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship Programme is
highly acknowledged for supporting the PhD study and
research work (SHE-09408-004/2019). The authors ac-
knowledge the support of the Hungarian Research Grant
NVKP 16-1-0019: “Development of Concrete Products with
Improved Resistance to Chemical Corrosion, Fire or Freeze-
Thaw.” They also acknowledge the support of the Stiftung
Aktion Österreich-Ungarn in the framework of the bilateral
research cooperation project no. 108öu3 between TU Wien
and the Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
This research was partially funded by the Stipendium
Hungaricum Scholarship Programme as part of the PhD
study of the first author.
9
References
[1] J. Davidovits, “Geopolymers,” Journal of Thermal Analysis,
vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1633–1656, 1991.
[2] P. Duxson, S. W. Mallicoat, G. C. Lukey, W. M. Kriven, and
J. S. J. van Deventer, “The effect of alkali and Si/Al ratio on the
development of mechanical properties of metakaolin-based
geopolymers,” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and
Engineering Aspects, vol. 292, no. 1, pp. 8–20, 2007.
[3] A. L. Almutairi, B. A. Tayeh, A. Adesina, H. F. Isleem, and
A. M. Zeyad, “Potential applications of geopolymer concrete
in construction: a review,” Case Studies in Construction
Materials, vol. 15, Article ID e00733, 2021.
[4] S. M. S. Taher, S. T. Saadullah, J. H. Haido, and B. A. Tayeh,
“Behavior of geopolymer concrete deep beams containing
waste aggregate of glass and limestone as a partial replacement
of natural sand,” Case Studies in Construction Materials,
vol. 15, Article ID e00744, 2021.
[5] J. Davidovits, “Geopolymer cements to minimize carbon-
dioxide greenhouse-warming,” Ceramic Transactions, vol. 37,
pp. 165–182, 1993.
[6] M. S. Saif, M. O. R. El-Hariri, A. I. Sarie-Eldin, B. A. Tayeh,
and M. F. Farag, “Impact of Ca+ content and curing condition
on durability performance of metakaolin-based geopolymer
mortars,” Case Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 16,
Article ID e00922, 2022.
[7] M. Amin, A. M. Zeyad, B. A. Tayeh, and I. S. Agwa, “Effect of
high temperatures on mechanical, radiation attenuation and
microstructure properties of heavyweight geopolymer con-
crete,” Structural Engineering & Mechanics, vol. 80,
pp. 181–199, 2021.
[8] S. M. A. Qaidi, B. A. Tayeh, A. M. Zeyad, A. R. G. de Azevedo,
W. Emad, and W. Emad, “Recycling of mine tailings for the
geopolymers production: a systematic review,” Case Studies in
Construction Materials, vol. 16, Article ID e00933, 2022.
[9] S. M. A. Qaidi, B. A. Tayeh, H. F. Isleem, A. R. G. de Azevedo,
W. Emad, and W. Emad, “Sustainable utilization of red mud
waste (bauxite residue) and slag for the production of geo-
polymer composites: a review,” Case Studies in Construction
Materials, vol. 16, Article ID e00994, 2022.
[10] B. A. Tayeh, A. Hakamy, M. Amin, A. M. Zeyad, and
I. S. Agwa, “Effect of air agent on mechanical properties and
microstructure of lightweight geopolymer concrete under
high temperature,” Case Studies in Construction Materials,
vol. 16, Article ID e00951, 2022.
[11] B. A. Tayeh, A. M. Zeyad, I. S. Agwa, and M. Amin, “Effect of
elevated temperatures on mechanical properties of light-
weight geopolymer concrete,” Case Studies in Construction
Materials, vol. 15, Article ID e00673, 2021.
[12] M. M. Ahmed, K. A. M. El-Naggar, D. Tarek et al., “Fabri-
cation of thermal insulation geopolymer bricks using ferro-
silicon slag and alumina waste,” Case Studies in Construction
Materials, vol. 15, Article ID e00737, 2021.
[13] A. M. Zeyad, H. M. Magbool, B. A. Tayeh, A. R. Garcez de
Azevedo, A. Abutaleb, and Q. Hussain, “Production of
geopolymer concrete by utilizing volcanic pumice dust,” Case
Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 16, Article ID e00802,
2022.
[14] F. Aslam, M. A. Elkotb, A. Iqtidar et al., “Compressive
strength prediction of rice husk ash using multiphysics ge-
netic expression programming,” Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, Article ID 101593, 2022.
[15] M. A. Khan, S. A. Memon, F. Farooq, M. F. Javed, F. Aslam,
and R. Alyousef, “Compressive strength of fly-ash-based
10
geopolymer concrete by gene expression programming and
random forest,” Advances in Civil Engineering, vol. 2021,
Article ID 6618407, 17 pages, 2021.
[16] M. A. Khan, F. Farooq, M. F. Javed et al., “Simulation of depth
of wear of eco-friendly concrete using machine learning based
computational approaches,” Materials, vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 58–28, 2021.
[17] A. A. Khalaf, K. Kopecskó, and I. Merta, “Prediction of the
compressive strength of fly ash geopolymer concrete by an
optimised neural network model,” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 7,
p. 1423, 2022.
[18] A. M. Neville, Properties of concrete, Pearson Education India,
Essex, England, 5th edition, 2011.
[19] R. Davidson and J. G. MacKinnon, Econometric Theory and
Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002.
[20] K. Dhir, S. Ghataora, and J. Lynn, “Concrete-Related Ap-
plications,” Sustainable Construction Materials, Woodhead
Publishing, Duxford, UK, 2017.
[21] ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements For Structural
Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2014.
[22] Fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete), Model
Code 2010, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Lausanne, Switzerland,
2013.
[23] “Portland cement association types and causes of concrete
deterioration,” Portl. Cem. Assoc. - Concr. Inf.vol. 1–16, 2002.
[24] D. Hardjito and B. V. Rangan, “Development and Properties
of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer concrete,” Re-
search Report GC, Faculty of Engineering Curtin University
of Technology, Perth, Australia, 2005.
[25] A. Fernandez-Jimenez, A. Palomo, and C. Lopez-Hombrados,
“Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete,”
ACI Materials Journal, vol. 103, 2006.
[26] M. Albitar, P. Visintin, M. S. Mohamed Ali, and M. Drechsler,
“Assessing behaviour of fresh and hardened geopolymer
concrete mixed with class-F fly ash,” KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1445–1455, 2014.
[27] W. Prachasaree, S. Limkatanyu, A. Hawa, P. Sukontasukkul,
and P. Chindaprasirt, “Manuscript title: development of
strength prediction models for fly ash based geopolymer
concrete,” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 32, Article ID
101704, 2020.
[28] M. Sofi, J. S. J. van Deventer, P. A. Mendis, and G. C. Lukey,
“Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes
(IPCs),” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 37, no. 2,
pp. 251–257, 2007.
[29] B. Tempest, Engineering Characterization of Waste Derived
Geopolymer Cement Concrete for Structural Applications, The
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Ann Arbor, USA,
2010.
[30] L. Diaz and I. Eleazar, “Development of Approximating
Functions to Model and Predict the Properties of Fresh and
Hardened Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer concrete,” Disserta-
tions, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, USA, 2011.
[31] N. K. Lee and H. K. Lee, “Setting and mechanical properties of
alkali-activated fly ash/slag concrete manufactured at room
temperature,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 47,
pp. 1201–1209, 2013.
[32] R. J. Thomas and S. Peethamparan, “Alkali-activated concrete:
engineering properties and stress-strain behavior,” Con-
struction and Building Materials, vol. 93, pp. 49–56, 2015.
[33] R. R. Bellum, K. Muniraj, and S. R. C. Madduru, “Investi-
gation on modulus of elasticity of fly ash-ground granulated
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
blast furnace slag blended geopolymer concrete,” Materials
Today Proceedings, vol. 27, pp. 718–723, 2020.
[34] P. Nath and P. K. Sarker, “Flexural strength and elastic
modulus of ambient-cured blended low-calcium fly ash
geopolymer concrete,” Construction and Building Materials,
vol. 130, pp. 22–31, 2017.
[35] W. Prachasaree, S. Limkatanyu, A. Hawa, and
A. Samakrattakit, “Development of equivalent stress block
parameters for fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete,” Arabian
Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 39, no. 12,
pp. 8549–8558, 2014.
[36] Y. Cui, K. Gao, and P. Zhang, “Experimental and statistical
study on mechanical characteristics of geopolymer concrete,”
Materials, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 1651, 2020.
[37] T. Xie, P. Visintin, X. Zhao, and R. Gravina, “Mix design and
mechanical properties of geopolymer and alkali activated
concrete: review of the state-of-the-art and the development
of a new unified approach,” Construction and Building Ma-
terials, vol. 256, Article ID 119380, 2020.
[38] D. Hardjito, S. E. Wallah, D. M. J. Sumajouw, and
B. V. Rangan, “The stress-strain behaviour of fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete,” in Development in Mechanics of
Structures and Materials, A.J. Decks and H. Hao, Eds.,
pp. 831–834, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Leiden, South Holland
Australia, 2004.
[39] S. You, S. W. Ho, T. Li, T. Maneerung, and C.-H. Wang,
“Techno-economic analysis of geopolymer production from
the coal fly ash with high iron oxide and calcium oxide
contents,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 361,
pp. 237–244, 2019.
[40] J. L. Provis and J. S. J. van Deventer, “Geopolymerisation
kinetics. 2. Reaction kinetic modelling,” Chemical Engineering
Science, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2318–2329, 2007.
[41] J. L. Provis and J. S. J. van Deventer, “Geopolymerisation
kinetics. 1. In situ energy-dispersive X-ray diffractometry,”
Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2309–2317,
2007.
[42] ACI 363R, State-of-the-Art Report on High-Strength Concrete
Reported by ACI Committee 363, Vol. 92, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005.
[43] BS En 206, BSI Standards Publication Concrete — Specification,
Performance , Production and Conformity, British Standards
Institution, London, UK, 2014.
[44] D. Hardjito, S. E. Wallah, D. M. J. Sumajouw, and
B. V. Rangan, “On the development of fly ash-based geo-
polymer concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, vol. 101, no. 6,
pp. 467–472, 2004.
[45] A. F. Siegel, “Confidence intervals,” Practical Business Sta-
tistics, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 219–247, 2012.
[46] J. R. Yost, A. Radlińska, S. Ernst, and M. Salera, “Structural
behavior of alkali activated fly ash concrete. Part 1: mixture
design, material properties and sample fabrication,” Materials
and Structures, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 435–447, 2013.
[47] F. U. A. Shaikh, “Mechanical and durability properties of fly
ash geopolymer concrete containing recycled coarse aggre-
gates,” International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment,
vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 277–287, 2016.
[48] K. Neupane, “Investigation on modulus of elasticity of
powder-activated geopolymer concrete,” International Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 262, 2016.
[49] Y. Wang, S. Hu, and Z. He, “Mechanical and fracture
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete addictive with
calcium aluminate cement,” Materials, vol. 12, no. 18, p. 2982,
2019.
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 11

[50] S. Saravanan and S. Elavenil, “Strength properties of geo-

polymer concrete using msand by assessing their mechanical
characteristics,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci.vol. 13, pp. 4028–4041,
2018.
[51] A. Albidah, A. S. Alqarni, H. Abbas, T. Almusallam, and Y. Al-
Salloum, “Behavior of Metakaolin-Based geopolymer con-
crete at ambient and elevated temperatures,” Construction
and Building Materials, vol. 317, p. 125910, 2022.
[52] V. Krishnan, Probability and Random Processes, John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006.
[53] V. Grech and N. Calleja, “WASP (write a scientific paper):
parametric vs. non-parametric tests,” Early Human Devel-
opment, vol. 123, pp. 48-49, 2018.
[54] H. J. Motulsky and L. A. Ransnas, “Fitting curves to data using
nonlinear regression: a practical and nonmathematical re-
view,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 365–374, 1987.
[55] A. M. Brown, “A step-by-step guide to non-linear regression
analysis of experimental data using a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedi-
cine, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 191–200, 2001.
[56] S. Khan, M. Ali Khan, A. Zafar et al., “Predicting the ultimate
axial capacity of uniaxially loaded cfst columns using mul-
tiphysics artificial intelligence,” Materials, vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 39–27, 2021.
[57] P. Li, M. Ali Khan, A. M. Galal et al., “Sustainable use of
chemically modified tyre rubber in concrete: machine
learning based novel predictive model,” Chemical Physics
Letters, vol. 793, Article ID 139478, 2022.
[58] M. Despotovic, V. Nedic, D. Despotovic, and S. Cvetanovic,
“Evaluation of empirical models for predicting monthly mean
horizontal diffuse solar radiation,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 56, pp. 246–260, 2016.