Evaluation of Factors Affecting Long-term Creep of Concrete Using

Machine Learning Regression Models

H. Daou, W. Raphael & F. Geara
Ecole Supérieure d’Ingénieurs de Beyrouth (ESIB), Saint-Joseph University, Lebanon

ABSTRACT: The major effects of creep in concrete bridge structures can be summarized in three categories:
camber and deflection, stress redistribution, and prestress loss. Creep affects the settings of bearings and the
size of sliding plates or laminated bearing pads as well as the size and setting of expansion joints. Creep also
influences the redistribution of forces in certain structures where the static system changes during construction,
and therefore, plays a major role in stress redistribution for composite construction. Moreover, creep affects the
amount of girder shortening due to the prestress and the corresponding loss of prestress, thereby also affects the
secondary moments in a prestressed girder bridge. Many factors including water-cement ratio, aggregate-ce-
ment ratio, cement content, type of cement, compressive strength, loading age, volume-surface ratio, tempera-
ture, relative humidity and stress may affect the long-term creep of concrete. This paper aims to investigate the
main factors affecting the long-term creep of concrete using machine learning. For that, multiple regression
models for predicting creep coefficient (Linear Model, Ridge Model, Lasso Model, Decision Tree Model, Bag-
ging Model, Random Forest Model, Generalized Boosting Model and Extreme Gradient Boosting Model) are
developed using the statistical software R. The creep tests used in this study are from the Northwestern Univer-
sity database. An evaluation of the regression models is performed by comparing the predicted value to the
experimental values, and the factors affecting creep are discussed. The results show that ensemble trees give a
more accurate prediction of the creep coefficient at long-term and that the factors have different degrees of
importance for the various regression models which must be well controlled to avoid the consequences of in-
accurate prediction of creep.

1 INTRODUCTION control the quality of the structural elements. Unfor-

Creep is one of the most significant time-dependent
behaviors of concrete, which forms the necessary ba-
sis for precise prediction and evaluation of the me-
chanical response of concrete structures under sus-
tained loads. In concrete bridges, the major effects of
creep can be summarized in three categories: camber
and deflection, stress redistribution, and prestress
loss. Creep affects the settings of bearings and the
size of sliding plates or laminated bearing pads as
well as the size and setting of expansion joints. Creep
also influences the redistribution of forces in certain
structures where the static system changes during
construction, and therefore, plays a major role in
stress redistribution for composite construction
(Balant & Panula 1980, Bazant et al. 2011, Daou et
al. 2019, Raphael et al. 2018). Therefore, the effects
of creep are needed to be calculated and considered to
tunately, these long-term effects are not easy to un-
derstand or to model and predict (Raphael et al.
2012).
Creep is a complex phenomenon that is affected by
several factors such as concrete mixtures (i.e., water-
cement ratio, compressive strength, type of cement,
and admixture) (Chunping et al. 2019, Daou &
Rapahel 2021, Daou & Raphael 2020, Kamen et al.
2009, Shen et al. 2017), environmental conditions
(i.e., temperature, and relative humidity) (Briffaut et
al. 2012, Theiner et al. 2017, Zheng et al. 2020), and
loading schemes (i.e., age at loading, and load) (Shen
et al. 2020, Su et al. 2017). These tests provided val-
uable data for understanding the creep behavior of
concrete. However, an accurate prediction remains a
challenge because of the high sensitivity of creep to
wide ranges of parameters and the interplay between
these parameters. This study provides a Machine
learning (ML) solution to predict creep coefficient at
long-term and evaluate the factors affecting it. As a
tributary of artificial intelligence, supervised ML has
been considered as a promising data-driven approach
to build robust models for predicting various proper-
ties and behaviors of heterogeneous materials.
Machine learning (ML) algorithms are ubiquitous
with their easy implementation over time. ML models
are often used to find trends and patterns in given ob-
servations. For quantitative data, regression models
are used for finding patterns. In recent years, many
researchers in the field of construction materials have
been implementing ML models in predicting com-
pressive strength (Marani et al. 2020), elastic modu-
lus (Han et al. 2020), shear capacity (Solhmirzaei et
al. 2020, Vu & Hoang 2015), flexural strength (Kang
et al. 2021), cracking propagation (Bayar & Bilir
2019), and drying shrinkage (Bal & Buyle-bodin
2013). ML models were also used in predicting the
crack condition of highway pavements (Inkoom et al.
2019), detecting bridges defects (Zhu et al. 2019), as-
sessing bridge condition (Liu & Zhang 2020), pre-
dicting crack classification in roads (Jo & Jadidi
2019), and predicting fatigue damage of highway sus-
pension bridge hangers (Deng et al. 2020). Ensemble
learning is a machine learning paradigm, which im-
proves stability and fits the base learner models such
as decision trees, support vector machines and neural
network models by aggregating their outputs to pro-
duce a single decision. Ensemble tree machine learn-
ing models have proved useful for solving poorly un-
derstood and complex problems (Dietterich 2000b).
In this study, ML models (i.e., linear, ridge, lasso, de-
cision tree, bagging, random forest, generalized
boosting, and extreme gradient boosting models) are
established to learn the underlying patterns behind
212 creep test results at long-term (i.e., 3000 days).
The creep tests are selected from the Northwestern
University database, which consists of experiments
conducted with different mixture proportions and un-
der various environmental conditions. Then, the anal-
ysis of significant factors on concrete creep is done.
The study aims to find out the importance of each fac-
tor for each of the regression models in order to figure
out the most affecting factors on creep of concrete to
control them well and avoid the consequences of in-
accurate prediction of creep.
2 METHODOLOGY
In order to know the best ML algorithm, which fits
better the given data, different ML regression models
or regressors are used in this study. Therefore, multi-
ple regressors are performed to select the best regres-
sor which is the best fit for the calculation of the con-
crete creep coefficient. Figure 1 shows the process of
the implementation of the problem.
Figure 1. Flowchart showing the implementation of the problem
2.1 Data collection
The data was retrieved from the Northwestern Uni-
versity (NU) database, which was assembled during
the period 2010-2013 under the support of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (Hubler et al. 2015).
This database is constituted of approximately 1433
creep tests performed using different concrete mix
compositions and under various environmental con-
ditions. Each test or experiment has many readings at
different times. This study aims to study the signifi-
cance of factors affecting creep at long-term; there-
fore 212 experiments conducted under different con-
ditions for specimens without admixtures are
considered from the NU database, and the creep coef-
ficient is calculated after 3000 days of loading.
Each observation has ten attributes namely aggregate-
cement ratio, water-cement ratio, cement type, ce-
ment content (kg/m3), compressive strength at the age
of 28 days (MPa), concrete age at loading (days), vol-
ume-surface ratio, sustained stress over the compres-
sive strength at loading age (MPa), temperature (°C),
and relative humidity (%). All the attributes are quan-
titative variables except the cement type. In the da-
taset, the cement type may be R (normal hardening),
RS (rapid hardening), or SL (slow hardening).
2.2 Data preprocessing
The attributes in the NU database have different
ranges. For example, the water-cement ratio ranges
between 0.3 and 0.8 while relative humidity varies
from 20% to 100%. Therefore, the data should be pre-
processed. The quantitative variables are standard-
ized using a z-score to easily calculate the most robust
model as shown in Equation 3.
𝑥−𝑥̅
𝑧= 𝜎
(1)
where x = original feature vector, 𝑥̅ = mean of the fea-
ture vector x, and σ = standard deviation.
2.3 Model building
Different ML regression models were used in this
study for the prediction of the creep coefficient,
namely Linear Model (Engel 2019), Ridge Model
(Hoerl & Kennard 1970), Lasso Model (Tibshirani
1996), Decision Tree Model (Breiman et al. 1984),
Bagging Model (Breiman 1996), Random Forest
Model (Breiman 2001), Generalized Boosting Model
(Friedman 2001) and Extreme Gradient Boosting
Model (Chen & Guestrin 2016).
2.3.1 Linear model
The linear model is the most general algorithm based
on supervised learning for machine learning predic-
tion. Linear regression technique identifies a linear
relationship between xi (input variables) and y (output
variable) as follows:
𝑦 = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1 𝑥1 + 𝛼2 𝑥2 + ⋯ + 𝛼𝑛 𝑥𝑛
where y = dependent variable value, xi = independent
variable value, and αi = estimated coefficients.
2.3.2 Ridge model
Ridge regression model is an extension of the linear
regression where it controls the estimated coefficients
using the square regulation (L2-norm) as follows:
𝑝 2 𝑝
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒(∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑦𝑖 𝛼0 − ∑𝑗=1 𝛼𝑗 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) + 𝜆 ∑𝑗=1 𝛼𝑗2 )
where n = number of observations, p = number of pre-
dictors or features, and λ = tuning parameter (Hoerl
& Kennard 1970).
2.3.3 Lasso model
Lasso regression is similar to the ridge regression but
the control of the estimated coefficients is made using
the least absolute regulation (L1-norm) as follows
(Tibshirani 1996):
𝑝 2 𝑝
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒(∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑦𝑖 𝛼0 − ∑𝑗=1 𝛼𝑗 𝑥𝑖𝑗 ) + 𝜆 ∑𝑗=1|𝛼𝑖 |)
2.3.4 Decision tree model
The decision tree can handle both numeric and cate-
gorical data. Tree-based models are a class of nonpar-
ametric algorithms that work by partitioning the fea-
ture space into many smaller and non-overlapping
regions with similar response values using a set of
splitting rules (Breiman et al. 1984).
2.3.5 Bagging model
Bagging, also called bootstrap aggregating, is one of
the first ensemble algorithms machine learning prac-
titioners learn and is designed to improve the accu-
racy and stability of classification and regression al-
gorithms. Bagging prediction models fit multiple
versions of a prediction model and then ensemble
them into an aggregate prediction (Breiman 1996).
Bagging works especially well for unstable, high var-
iance base learners algorithms whose predicted out-
put undergoes a major change in response to small
changes in the training data (Dietterich 2000a).
2.3.6 Random Forest model
Random forests are a modification of bagged decision
trees that build a large collection of de-correlated
trees to further improve predictive performance. Ran-
dom forests are a combination of tree predictors such
that each tree depends on the values of a random vec-
tor sampled independently and with the same distri-
bution for all trees (Breiman 2001).
2.3.7 Generalized Boosting model
Generalized boosting models are an extremely popu-
lar machine learning algorithm, and have proven suc-
cessful across many fields. There is a combination be-
tween decision tree algorithms and boosting methods.
(2)
The boosting framework was generalized to regres-
sion problems by relating boosting algorithm to im-
portant statistical concepts like loss functions
(Friedman 2001).
2.3.8 Extreme Gradient Boosting model
Extreme gradient boosting is an efficient and scalable
variant of the gradient boosting machine. Gradient
boosted trees use regression trees in a sequential
(3) learning process as weak learners. Extreme gradient
boosting yields a direct interpretation of boosting
methods from the point of view of numerical optimi-
zation in function space and generalize them by al-
lowing optimization of an arbitrary loss function
(Chen & Guestrin 2016).
2.4 Model evaluation
The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square
error (RMSE) are the metrics used for the evaluation
of the models.
MAE computes the mean of the absolute difference
(4) between the actual and the predicted creep coefficient
at long-term. MAE is defined as:
1
𝑀𝐴𝐸 = 𝑛 ∑𝑛𝑖=1|𝑦𝑖 − 𝑦̂𝑖 | (5)
where n = the total number of observations, yi = the
actual value of the creep coefficient for the observa-
tion i, and 𝑦̂𝑖 = the predicted value of the creep coef-
ficient for the observation i.
RMSE computes the root mean square of the differ-
ence between the predicted creep coefficient and the
actual creep coefficient for all the observations in the
dataset. RMSE is defined as:
(𝑦 2
̂−𝑦𝑖)
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = √∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑖
𝑛
(6)
2.5 Feature importance
The feature importance is studied for the different ML
regression models or regressors. Different regressors
have different importance values for the given fea-
tures. Each model is analyzed to find out which fea-
tures are the most significant.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION gradient boosting model are the best performing algo-
rithms. Ensemble learners always tend to outperform
The dataset used in this study is retrieved from the the conventional machine learning algorithms and, in
Northwestern University database and includes 212 this study too, ensemble learners have shown good
readings of creep coefficient from experiments per- performance for predicting the output (i.e., creep co-
formed using different concrete mix compositions efficient). However, the bagging model is the best
and under various environmental conditions. The model to predict the creep coefficient at long-term in
creep coefficient is calculated at 3000 days using the the given dataset in terms of MAE and RMSE. In fact,
interpolation and extrapolation equations (Eqs 1-2). the bagging model works well on decision tree mod-
The dataset is randomly divided into a training set els where it highly improves regression performance
(159 readings) and a test set (53 readings). Different and overfitting, and decreases the prediction variance.
machine learning regression models are used to per- As shown in Table 1, there is an improvement in pre-
form the prediction of the concrete creep coefficient diction accuracy of approximately 32% and 43% in
at long-term and carried out using the statistical soft- MAE and RMSE, respectively, between bagging and
ware R. These models include linear model, ridge decision tree models.
model, lasso model, elastic net model, decision tree The importance of the given factors for different re-
model, bagging model, random forest model, gener- gression models is calculated and shown in Figures 2-
alized boosting model, and extreme gradient boosting 9.
model. The evaluation of models was done based on The rows index in the Figures 2-9 represents the fea-
the MAE and RMSE. The mathematical expressions tures as shown in Table 2.
for MAE and RMSE are given in Equations 5 and 6.
The linear model predicts the creep coefficient in the Table 2. Index and feature name
function of the ten variables. The ridge model adds a Index Features (Factors)
square regulation (L2-norm) to the cost function w/c Water-cement ratio
while the lasso model uses the absolute regulation a/c Aggregate-cement ratio
(L1-norm). The decision tree model creates partitions c Cement content
in predictors so that the creep coefficient can be pre- V/S Volume-surface ratio
dicted based on partitions between the ten input vari- RH Relative humidity
ables. The bagging model fits multiple versions of a t0 Loading age
prediction model and then ensembles them into an ag- fcm Compressive strength
gregate prediction. The random forest model injects load Sustained load over com-
more randomness in the tree-growing process by ran- pressive strength at loading
domly selecting a bootstrap sample to train on and a T Temperature
random sample of features to use at each split. The R, RS and SL Type of cement
generalized boosting model iteratively improves re-
gression trees, where each model in the sequence
slightly improves the performance of the previous
model. This improvement is done primarily by focus-
ing on the rows of the training data where the previ-
ous tree had the largest errors or residuals. The ex-
treme gradient boosting model increases speed and
performance by introducing regularization parame-
ters to reduce overfitting. The performance of all
models is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. MAE and RMSE for the different models.

Model MAE RMSE
Linear model 0.47 0.58
Ridge model 0.47 0.57
Lasso model 0.48 0.57
Decision tree model 0.41 0.60
Bagging model 0.28 0.34
Random forest model 0.30 0.35
Generalized boosting model 0.28 0.37
Extreme gradient boosting model 0.30 0.42

As shown in Table 1, the bagging model, random for-

est model, generalized boosting model and extreme
Figure 2. Feature importance for the linear regression model
Figure 3. Feature importance for the ridge regression model Figure 5. Feature importance for the decision tree model

Figure 4. Feature importance for the lasso regression model Figure 6. Feature importance for the bagging model
Figure 7. Feature importance for the random forest model
Figure 8. Feature importance for the generalized boosting model
Figure 9. Feature importance for the extreme gradient boosting
model
As shown in Figures 2-9, the factors have different
degrees of importance for the various regression mod-
els. For the linear, ridge and lasso model, relative hu-
midity is the most influential factor on creep coeffi-
cient. For the decision tree and ensemble trees
models, the sustained load is the most factor affecting
the long-term creep coefficient. Therefore, creep de-
formations are strongly influenced by the intensity of
the applied sustained load.
Based on the best prediction model (i.e., bagging
model), the concrete mixture proportions including
the aggregate-cement ratio (a/c), cement content (c)
and water-cement ratio (w/c) have a significant im-
pact on creep. Therefore, these factors must be well
predicted and identified during the design phase and
should necessarily be controlled by a quality control
on the worksite, because the creep depends largely on
them.
4 CONCLUSION
The study of algorithms for predicting creep of the
concrete is of high importance. Since the design of
bridges depends on the time-dependent properties of
concrete, the factors affecting creep should be studied
very well. This study builds eight machine learning
models (i.e., linear model, ridge model. lasso model,
decision tree model, bagging model, random forest
model, generalized boosting model, and extreme gra-
dient boosting model) for predicting creep coefficient
at long-term. Ten factors including the water-cement
ratio, aggregate-cement ratio, cement content, type of
cement, loading age, compressive strength, volume-
surface ratio, sustained load, temperature and relative
humidity were considered as input variables or fea-
tures. The dataset contains 212 readings of creep co-
efficient at 3000 days.
The dataset was preprocessed using the z-score and
was randomly divided into a training set and a test set.
Then, the machine learning models were built to pre-
dict the creep coefficient at 3000 days using the sta-
tistical software R. The models were evaluated based
on the mean absolute value (MAE) and root mean
square error (RMSE). The ensemble trees algorithms
showed a good performance for predicting the long-
term creep coefficient in terms of MAE and RMSE.
Moreover, the bagging model was the best model for
predicting the long-term creep coefficient. The results
showed that there is a prediction accuracy improve-
ment of approximately 32% and 43% in MAE and
RMSE, respectively, between bagging and decision
tree models, which shows that the bagging model
works well on decision tree models as it significantly
improves the regression performance and overfitting,
and reduces the prediction variance.
The analysis of significant factors showed that the
factors have different degrees of importance for the
various regression models. For the linear, ridge and
lasso model, relative humidity is the most influential
factor on creep coefficient. For the decision tree and
ensemble trees models, the sustained load is the most
factor affecting the long-term creep coefficient. How-
ever, according to the best predicting model, load,
mixture proportions (i.e., aggregate-cement ratio, ce-
ment content and water-cement ratio) in addition to
compressive strength have major effects on concrete
creep. Therefore, and in order to avoid the conse-
quences of inaccurate prediction of creep, these fac-
tors should be highlighted and taken into account in
all models predicting creep. Moreover, the variables
which have the biggest influence on creep should nec-
essarily be controlled by a quality control on the
worksite, because the creep depends on it largely.
5 REFERENCES
Bal, L. & Buyle-bodin, F. 2013. Artificial neural
network for predicting drying shrinkage of
concrete. Construction and Building Materials
38: 248–254.
Balant, Z. P. & Panula, L. 1980. Creep and Shrinkage
Characterisation for Analyzing Prestressed
Concrete Structures. PCI Journal 25(3): 86–
122.
Bayar, G. & Bilir, T. 2019. A novel study for the
estimation of crack propagation in concrete
using machine learning algorithms.
Construction and Building Materials 215: 670–
685.
Bazant, Z. P. Hubler, M. H. & Yu, Q. 2011.
Pervasiveness of Excessive Segmental Bridge
Deflections : Wake-Up Call for Creep. ACI
Structural Journal 108(6): 766–774.
Breiman, L. 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine
Learning 24: 123–140.
Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine
Learning 45: 5–32.
Breiman, L. Friedman, J. Stone, C. J. & Olshen, R. A.
1984. Classification and Regression Trees,
Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Briffaut, M. Benboudjema, F. Torrenti, J. & Nahas,
G. 2012. Concrete early age basic creep:
Experiments and test of rheological modelling
approaches. Construction and Building
Materials 36: 373–380.
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. 2016. XGBoost: A Scalable
Tree Boosting System. In Proceedings of the
22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference
on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, New
York, NY, USA: Association for Computing
Machinery, pp. 785–794.
Chunping, G. Yicong, W. Fan, G. … Jin, C. 2019.
Early age tensile creep of high performance
concrete containing mineral admixtures:
Experiments and modeling. Construction and
Building Materials 197: 766–777.
Daou, H. Abou Salha, W. Raphael, W. &
Chateauneuf, A. 2019. Explanation of the
collapse of Terminal 2E at Roissy–CDG Airport
by nonlinear deterministic and reliability
analyses. Case Studies in Construction
Materials 10. doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00222
Daou, H. & Rapahel, W. 2021. Identifying the Weight
of Factors Affecting Creep of Concrete Using
Factorial ANOVA. Key Engineering Materials
872: 21–25.
Daou, H. & Raphael, W. 2020. Investigation of the
Significance of Factors Affecting Long-Term
Creep of Concrete using Screening Designs. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering 809. doi:10.1088/1757-
899X/809/1/012016
Deng, Y. Zhang, M. Feng, D. & Li, A. 2020.
Predicting fatigue damage of highway
suspension bridge hangers using weigh-in-
motion data and machine learning. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance,
Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance 1–16.
Dietterich, T. 2000a. An Experimental Comparison of
Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of
Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and
Randomization. Machine Learning 40: 139–
157.
Dietterich, T. 2000b. Ensemble Methods in Machine
Learning. International Workshop on Multiple
Classifier Systems 1–15.
Engel, G. 2019. Machine Learning to Approximate
Solutions of Ordinary Differential Equations :
Neural Networks vs . Linear Regressors. In
International Conference on Computational
Science, Springer, pp. 169–177.
Friedman, J. H. 2001. Greedy Function
Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine.
The Annals of Statistics 29(5): 1169–1232.
Hamed, E. 2015. Non-linear creep effects in concrete
under uniaxial compression. Magazine of
Concrete Research 67(16): 876–884.
Han, T. Siddique, A. Khayat, K. Huang, J. & Kumar,
A. 2020. An ensemble machine learning
approach for prediction and optimization of
modulus of elasticity of recycled aggregate
concrete. Construction and Building Materials
244: 118271.
Harinadha Reddy, D. & Ramaswamy, A. 2018.
Experimental and numerical modeling of creep
in different types of concrete. Heliyon 4(7).
doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00698
Hoerl, A. E. & Kennard, R. W. 1970. Ridge
Regression: Biased Estimation for
Nonorthogonal Problems. Technometrics 12(1):
55–67.
Hubler, M. H. Wendner, R. & Bažant, Z. P. 2015.
Comprehensive Database for Concrete Creep
and Shrinkage: Analysis and Recommendations
for Testing and Recording. ACI Materials
Journal 112(4). doi:10.14359/51687453
Inkoom, S. Sobanjo, J. Barbu, A. & Niu, X. 2019.
Prediction of the crack condition of highway
pavements using machine learning models.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design
and Performance 0(0): 1–14.
Jo, J. & Jadidi, Z. 2019. A high precision crack
classification system using multi-layered image
processing and deep belief learning. Structure
and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance,
Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance 1–9.
Kamen, A. Denarie, E. Sadouki, H. & Bruhwiler, E.
2009. UHPFRC tensile creep at early age.
Materials and Structures 42: 113–122.
Kang, M. Yoo, D. & Gupta, R. 2021. Machine
learning-based prediction for compressive and
flexural strengths of steel fiber-reinforced
concrete. Construction and Building Materials
266: 121117.
Liu, H. & Zhang, Y. 2020. Bridge condition rating
data modeling using deep learning algorithm.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design
and Performance 1–14.
Marani, A. Jamali, A. & Nehdi, M. L. 2020.
Predicting Ultra-High-Performance Concrete
Compressive Strength Using Tabular
Generative. Materials 13: 4757.
Raphael, W. Faddoul, R. Geara, F. & Chateauneuf, A.
2012. Improvements to the Eurocode 2
shrinkage model for concrete using a large
experimental database. Structural Concrete
13(3): 174–181.
Raphael, W. Zgheib, E. & Chateauneuf, A. 2018.
Experimental investigations and sensitivity
analysis to explain the large creep of concrete
deformations in the bridge of Cheviré. Case
Studies in Construction Materials 9: e00176.
Shen, D. Jiang, J. Wang, W. Shen, J. & Jiang, G.
2017. Tensile creep and cracking resistance of
concrete with different water-to-cement ratios at
early age. Construction and Building Materials
146: 410–418.
Shen, D. Li, C. Liu, C. Li, M. & Kang, J. 2020.
Experimental investigations on early-age tensile
creep of internally cured high strength concrete
under different initial stress / strength ratios.
Construction and Building Materials 265:
120313.
Solhmirzaei, R. Salehi, H. Kodur, V. & Naser, M. Z.
2020. Machine learning framework for
predicting failure mode and shear capacity of
ultra high performance concrete beams.
Engineering Structures 224: 111221.
Su, L. Wang, Y. Mei, S. & Li, P. 2017. Experimental
investigation on the fundamental behavior of
concrete creep. Construction and Building
Materials 152: 250–258.
Theiner, Y. Drexel, M. Neuner, M. & Hofstetter, G.
2017. Comprehensive study of concrete creep ,
shrinkage , and water content evolution under
sealed and drying conditions. Strain (53): 1–13.
Tibshirani, R. 1996. Regression shrinkage and
Selection via the Lasso. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)
267–288.
Vu, D. & Hoang, N. 2015. Punching shear capacity
estimation of FRP- reinforced concrete slabs
using a hybrid machine learning approach.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design
and Performance.
doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1086386
Zheng, Z. Hu, D. Liu, P. Sha, F. Liu, L. & Yu, Z.
2020. Considering the effect of the randomness
of concrete strength and relative humidity on
concrete creep. Structural Concrete 1–15.
Zhu, J. Zhang, C. Qi, H. & Lu, Z. 2019. Vision-based
defects detection for bridges using transfer
learning and convolutional neural networks.
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:
Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design
and Performance 0(0): 1–13.