Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Forecasting the strength of graphene nanoparticles-reinforced cementitious

composites using ensemble learning algorithms
Majid Khan a, Roz-Ud-Din Nassar b, Waqar Anwar c, Mazhar Rasheed d, Taoufik Najeh e, *,
Yaser Gamil f, Furqan Farooq g, h
a
Civil Engineering Department, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, 22060, Pakistan
b
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, American University of Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA
d
College of Engineering and Technology, University of Sargodha, 40100, Pakistan
e
Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden
f
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia
g
NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-
12, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
h
Military Engineer Service (MES), Ministry of Defence (MoD), Rawalpindi, 43600, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Contemporary infrastructure requires structural elements with enhanced mechanical strength and durability.
Graphene nanoparticles composites Integrating nanomaterials into concrete is a promising solution to improve concrete strength and durability.
Decision tree However, the intricacies of such nanoscale cementitious composites are highly complex. Traditional regression
AdaBoost regressor
models encounter limitations in capturing these intricate compositions to provide accurate and reliable esti­
Bagging regressor
Compressive strength
mations. This study focuses on developing robust prediction models for the compressive strength (CS) of gra­
phene nanoparticle-reinforced cementitious composites (GrNCC) through machine learning (ML) algorithms.
Three ML models, bagging regressor (BR), decision tree (DT), and AdaBoost regressor (AR), were employed to
predict CS based on a comprehensive dataset of 172 experimental values. Seven input parameters, including
graphite nanoparticle (GrN) diameter, water-to-cement ratio (wc), GrN content (GC), ultrasonication (US), sand
content (SC), curing age (CA), and GrN thickness (GT), were considered. The models were trained with 70 % of
the data, and the remaining 30 % of the data was used for testing the models. Statistical metrics such as mean
absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (R) were employed to assess the
predictive accuracy of the models. The DT and AR models demonstrated exceptional accuracy, yielding high
correlation coefficients of 0.983 and 0.979 for training, and 0.873 and 0.822 for testing, respectively. Shapley
Additive exPlanation (SHAP) analysis highlighted the influential role of curing age and GrN thickness (GT),
positively impacting CS, while an increased water-to-cement ratio (w/c) negatively affected CS. This study
showcases the efficacy of ML techniques in accurately predicting CS of graphene nanoparticle-modified concrete,
offering a swift and cost-effective approach for assessing nanomaterial impact on concrete strength and reducing
reliance on time-consuming and expensive experiments.

other components [2]. As a result, the progress in nanotechnology (NT)

1. Introduction
Incorporating nanomaterials (NMs) into cementitious composites
yields excellent outcomes, enhancing both mechanical and multifunc­
tional properties [1]. The utilization of these materials can improve the
structural integrity of various elements, such as concrete, steel, and
has sparked the development of innovative materials, bringing forth
new possibilities, and their utilization will enhance the durability,
toughness, and mechanical properties of composite [3]. Recently,
various studies investigated the strength features of NMs-modified
concrete in cementitious matrix. Thus, micro-clay (MC), micro silica
(MS), nanoscale aluminium (NA), and graphite nanoparticles (GrN)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 18pwciv4988@uetpeshawar.edu.pk (M. Khan), rozuddin.nassar@aurak.ac.ae (R.-U.-D. Nassar), Waqar.anwar@unh.edu (W. Anwar),
mazharrasheedms@gmail.com (M. Rasheed), taoufik.najeh@ltu.se (T. Najeh), yaser.g@monash.edu (Y. Gamil), furqan@cuiatd.edu.pk (F. Farooq).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101837
Received 20 July 2023; Received in revised form 25 January 2024; Accepted 25 January 2024
Available online 6 February 2024
2590-1230/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

Abbreviations list GO Graphene oxide

MAE Mean absolute error
CNTs Carbon nanotubes TIO2 Nano-sized titanium dioxide
NMs Nanomaterials NS Nano-silica
CS Compressive strength NC Nano-clay
ML Machine-learning XGBoost Extreme gradient boosting
R Correlation coefficient OPC Ordinary Portland cement
RFA Random forest algorithm ANN Artificial neural networks
GrN Graphite nanoparticles RMSE Root mean square error
W/C water-to-cement ratio DT Decision tree
NT Nanotechnology BR Bagging regressor
NA Nanoscale aluminium AR AdaBoost regressor
MC Micro-clay GEP Gene expression programming
MS Micro-silica US Ultrasonication
GrNCC Graphene nanoparticles-reinforced cementitious SC Sand content
composites CA Curing age
ρ Performance index SHAP Shapley Additive explanation
RSE Root squared error ELA Ensemble learning algorithms
RRMSE Relative root mean square error RF Random forest
RSE Relative squared error HSC High-strength concrete
CNFs Carbon nanofibers

were incorporated in varying ratios to boost the strength properties of
the composite matrix [4–6]. NMs are widely utilized to enhance the
effectiveness of concrete by leveraging physical phenomena like nucle­
ation and filling [7–9]. The application of nanomaterials has attracted
substantial interest in the concrete domain due to its inherent advan­
tages, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
NMs have been extensively used to upgrade the mechanical char­
acteristics of cement-based composites [7]. By preventing the formation
of small fractures, these materials contribute to developing advanced
cement composites with greater energy absorption capacities before
failure [10]. Various types of nanomaterials, including carbon nano­
tubes (CNTs) [11–14], carbon nanofibers (CNFs) [15–17], graphite
nanoparticles (GrN) [18–20], nano-silica (NS) [21–25], nano-sized ti­
tanium dioxide (TiO2) [26–28], and nano-clay (NC) [10,29], have
extensively been utilized been to improve concrete qualities. The NMs
Fig. 1. Impact of nanomaterials on cement-based materials.
are incorporated in concrete to enhance the microstructure of the ma­
trix, resulting in improved mechanical, physical, and crack resistance
properties [30]. For instance, Mohammed et al. [31] reported that the
inclusion of 1 % NS improved compressive strength by 15.1 %–72 %
based on the curing age. Similarly, Amin and El-Hassan [32] reported
that the concrete samples incorporating nano-silica exhibited superior
strength compared to those containing nano-ferrite. The addition of CNT
up to 0.5 % significantly improved the compressive strength of concrete
by 38.6 % [33]. Furthermore, small reinforcing materials like GrN and
nanocomposites are particularly effective in preventing the progression
of cracks caused by nanoscale fractures over time [19]. Furthermore, the
inclusion of GrN in cementitious materials enhances concrete mechan­
ical behavior by controlling the creation of nano-cracks and acting as
nucleation sites for hydrate formation. Moreover, GrN can help mitigate
shrinkage cracks in the composite [34]. Overall, the enhanced strength
properties of concrete modified with nanomaterials could be attributed
to the pozzolanic filling effect, nucleation effect, and the catalyzed
development of bridging, which contribute to the strengthening mech­
anism of nanomaterials [33,35,36].
Graphite nanoparticles have attracted considerable attention
because of their exceptional microscopic features and enhanced char­
acteristics when incorporated into concrete. Mohsen et al. [37] inves­
tigated the properties of GrN in cement paste. The findings indicated
that GrN, with a longer length and small particle size, has the most
significant influence on composite strength. Li et al. [38] studied the use
of surface-treated GrN in cementitious systems. The researchers found
that the inclusion of 0.5 % GrN (by weight of the binder) enhanced
compressive and flexural strength by 19 % and 25 %, respectively.
Moreover, the inclusion of GrN in the cement impacted the distribution
of pore sizes and resulted in a decrease in porosity. In another study, the
effect of CNTs was studied when incorporated in foam concrete [39].
The toughness was enhanced by 7.5 %, and the rapture strength
increased by 40 %. Li et al. [40] investigated the strength properties of
concrete with functional GrN. The treated GrN resulted in enhanced
flexural and compressive strength. The treated GrN produced strong
binding between the GrN and the composite matrix and reduced the
voids and porosity within the cement matrix. Consequently, the concrete
became denser and more compact. The GrN also played a bridging role,
connecting cracks and voids within the matrix [41,42]. It is crucial to
note that multiple features, such as the type of GrN, their concentration,
and the water content, affect the characteristics of cementitious

2
M. Khan et al.
composites. Determining the optimal content of GrN in the matrix is a
crucial aspect of research in cementitious composites. It is essential to
establish the relationship between the composite features and various
factors, including the GrN content [43–46]. The strength properties of
these materials can be significantly improved by incorporating the
appropriate dosage of GrN. However, both excessive and insufficient
content of GrN can lead to detrimental outcomes in cementitious com­
posites [47]. Conducting experimental tests on composite materials to
evaluate their properties is time-intensive and expensive. Such limita­
tions make it impractical to conduct tests on a large number of speci­
mens with various concentrations of GrN using empirical formulations
due to the nonlinearity nature between parameters. Therefore, devel­
oping prediction models for composite materials is crucial to address
these challenges.
Recently, ML approaches have been utilized to estimate the charac­
teristics of construction materials, demonstrating encouraging results
that surpass established theoretical frameworks [48–56]. For example,
the random forest (RF) method was used to explore the strength char­
acteristics of high-strength concrete (HSC), and it was shown that the RF
model exhibited high predictive capabilities [57]. Zahra et al. [58]
employed artificial neural network (ANN) models to model the CS of
concrete. Saleh et al. [59] employed ANN, nonlinear regression (NLR),
multi-expression programming (MEP), and Gaussian process regression
(GPR) to estimate the strength of engineered cementitious composites.
The ANN algorithm provided higher accuracy compared to the GPR,
MEP, and NLR methods. Similarly, Mahmood et al. [60] used M5P-tree
and ANN methods to predict the early strength of flowable ordinary
Portland cement. Furthermore, Chou et al. [61] employed multiple ML
models to estimate the CS of concrete and reported that ML models
provided prediction with higher accuracy. Behnood et al. [62] evaluated
the durability of high-strength concrete utilizing ML. The study found
that the tree ensemble model performed exceptionally well in estimating
the characteristics of the concrete. Piro et al. [63] used different tech­
niques to forecast the CS of graphene particles (GrN) added to concrete.
The results showed that artificial neural networks achieved more ac­
curacy and fewer errors, indicating their superior performance in com­
parison to other methods. Sohaib et al. [64] utilized random forest
methods (RFM) and decision tree (DT) to estimate the CS of concrete
Fig. 2. Scientometric analysis of ML applications in civil engineering.
3
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
added with nano-silica and reported that RFM outperformed DT in
achieving higher accuracy. Murad et al. [65] utilized the gene expres­
sion programming (GEP) method to estimate the concrete strength
incorporating various NMs. Li et al. [66] estimated concrete CS with
carbon nanotubes using different models. The study found that both
random forest and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) algorithms pro­
vided precise prediction, with XGB showing a higher performance.
Furthermore, Mohammed et al. [67] utilized NLR and ANN methods to
model the CS cement past containing nano-clay. It was reported that the
NLR model closely approximated the experimental compressive strength
data, surpassing the predictive accuracy of the ANN model [67]. The
NLR model also exhibited excellent accuracy in estimating the CS of
cement paste with nano-calcium carbonate [68]. Moreover, Piro et al.
[69] reported that the ANN approach outperformed the traditional
regression methods in estimating the properties of cement
paste-modified carbon nanotubes. Rahimzadeh et al. [70] similarly
found that the ANN approach demonstrated superior accuracy in com­
parison to both NLR and linear regression methods. Furthermore,
Mohammed et al. [71] model the rheological and strength properties of
clay nano-size using NLR and ANN methods. These studies highlight the
significant contributions of ML methods in civil engineering, particu­
larly in estimating the characteristics and behavior of cement-based
materials reinforced with nanomaterials [72–77]. The applications of
ML algorithms have shown promising potential in advancing the con­
struction industry [78–90], as shown in Fig. 2.
The majority of investigations on GrNCC have shown their
outstanding potential as a novel construction material. Nevertheless,
there are some concerns in the published studies related to the pro­
duction of GrNCC under diverse situations. Traditional modeling
methodologies make it challenging to construct strong computing
models for GrNCC’s properties. GrNCC’s property-influencing compo­
nents are very detailed due to their multiscale complexity. In addition to
the multi-state composition, which includes matrix and filler, produc­
tion parameters such as curing and dispersion are important to the
experimental outcomes [91,92]. Advanced models for the mechanical
characteristics (e.g., CS) of the GrNCC must be developed, taking into
consideration all essential influencing factors.
Multiple ML techniques are utilized to tackle the drawbacks of using
M. Khan et al.
conventional empirical techniques in a variety of civil engineering issues
with many variables [93–95]. These approaches are not based on
pre-defined functions [96–99]. Comprehensive studies are being un­
dertaken to forecast various properties of GrNCC using ML models. Lin
et al. [100] used convolutional neural networks (CNN) to explore the
microstructures of conventional Portland cement (OPC). Their study
provided a unique pathway to the micro-structural characterization of
concrete composites. Dong et al. [101] and Abdul et al. [75] used four
ML techniques, namely, XGBoost, support vector regression (SVR), and
RFR, to forecast the characteristics of GrNCC. Sun et al. [102] prepared
cementitious composites containing steel slag and graphite powder.
Overall, they prepared 81 specimens for CS and 108 specimens for the
electrical resistivity test. The ML-modeled outcomes are consistent with
experimental outcomes. Each ML method has its own architecture, as
well as distinct benefits and drawbacks. Their regression capacity has
been found to be limited [103,104]. [105–107]. Several researchers
have employed ML techniques, including ANN, DT, and GEP, to evaluate
concrete properties [108–120]. However, these individual learning al­
gorithms have limitations compared to ensemble learning algorithms
(ELA) [121–123]. Later, the ensemble learning (EL) technique was
created with the combination of multiple algorithms. Because of the
mixing mechanism, the EL approach can achieve significantly more
accuracy and resilience, allowing it to utilize various diverse potentials
of multiple unique algorithms. EL utilizes a procedure that combines
multiple single learning methods to enhance accuracy [124–130].
Boosting and bagging are two examples of EL that can improve predic­
tive accuracy in composite materials [105,131–134]. In the bagging
approach, weak learners are concurrently generated by individual al­
gorithms, whereas in boosting, they are sequentially produced [135].
Fig. 3 illustrates the difference between ensemble and individual
methods [136–138].
This study focuses on forecasting the CS of GrNCC using bagging
regressor (BR), decision tree (DT), and AdaBoost regressor (AR) while
taking into consideration all the influencing parameters. The database is
collected through a rigorous literature search. The study employed
various statistical metrics, regression analysis and external validation
criteria to analyze and verify the accuracy of the proposed models. This
work is unique because it models the CS of GrNCC using individual (DT)
and ensemble learning (EL) approaches. The major objectives of the
study are: (1) to develop robust and reliable prediction model for
compressive strength of graphene nanoparticles-reinforced cementitious
composites, (2) to conduct a comparative analysis of ensemble methods
and individual ML methods in estimating the strength of GrNCC, (3) to
interpret the predictions of ML methods using SHapley Additive exPla­
nations (SHAP).
Fig. 3. Differentiation between single and ensemble techniques.
4
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
2. Methodology
2.1. Data acquisition
An extensive literature review is conducted to collect experimental
data points on the compressive strength of GrNCC. A wide range of data
pertinent to GrNCC is collected from published articles [91,92,
139–167]. The database for compressive strength consists of 172 data
points (provided in supplementary materials: Table S1).
2.2. Selection of input parameters
A comprehensive investigation was conducted to explore the pa­
rameters influencing the CS of GrNCC. Key aspects were gathered and
used to determine dataset input attributes. Input variables were chosen
for this study according to the recommendations of the literature
research [168,169]. After a rigorous process, seven input parameters,
namely water-to-cement ratio, GrN diameter, GrN content, sand con­
tent, ultrasonication, GrN thickness, and curing age, are finalized.
GrNCC specimens are normally prepared following ASTM C39 [170]
standard criteria. Certain characteristics of graphene, such as thickness
and diameter, are included because they impact the CS. The aspect ratio,
on the other hand, was ignored because it is derived from diameter and
thickness, which are already included. According to the statistics ob­
tained, most of the studies available on GrNCC favored fine sand over
medium sand. GrO, a form of GrN, is mostly utilized in GrNCC compared
to rGrO and GrN. Thus, the present study database considers GrO as an
input variable. Furthermore, there were approximately two times more
studies that suggested chamber curing of specimens was preferable to
water curing. The length of ultrasonication processing was critical in
assessing the dispersion influence of GrNs in water. CA is a critical
variable that influences the hydration condition and significantly affects
the examined property. Generally, the CS is not dependent on specimen
size; thus, the size of the specimen is ignored to be considered as an input
variable.
The generalizability of ML models is impacted by the pattern of
distribution of input parameters [80,82,85,171]. Fig. 4 shows distribu­
tion plots of input features to provide input data in a comprehensible
manner. The figure illustrates that the distribution of data is not uniform
and that the frequencies are adequately higher, as desired. Table 1 also
includes extra statistical parameters for input variables, such as central
tendency (mean, median), data distribution, data extremes, and data
distribution trends, to offer an improved understanding of the input
database. This improves the data’s comprehension. The statistical
analysis demonstrates that the constructed ML models are adaptable to a
broader variety of data, increasing their utility.
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

Fig. 4. Frequency histograms of the variables.

5
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

Table 1
Various statistics of input and output database.
Statistical parameter SC GD (μm) GT (nm) GC (wt%) w/c US (hr) CA (days) CS (MPa)

Mean 1.37 3.38 3.39 0.26 0.40 0.49 19.70 48.51

Median 0 1.6 1.75 0.04 0.37 0.17 28 48.76
Standard error 0.11 0.52 0.39 0.07 0.008 0.06 0.82 1.45
Standard deviation 1.49 6.87 5.19 0.94 0.11 0.82 10.82 19.10
Mode 0 0.55 1 0.03 0.37 0 28 53.32
Kurtosis − 1.99 35.55 14.18 31.12 1.43 4.66 − 1.49 − 0.60
Sample variance 2.24 47.21 27.01 0.89 0.012 0.68 117.16 365.18
Range 3 49.92 26.9 6.39 0.52 3 27 79.67
Skewness 0.16 5.60 3.63 5.44 1.24 2.37 − 0.62 0.20
Maximum 3 50 27.6 6.4 0.72 3 28 94.26
Minimum 0 0.07 0.7 0.01 0.2 0 1 14.59

2.3. Data pre-processing
The performance of ML models can be impacted due to the variations
in scales and ranges of input variables [172]. Table 1 shows that input
and output parameters have a wide range. For instance, GD ranges from
0.072 to 50, and GT ranges from 0.7 to 27.6. Similarly, CS ranged from
14.59 to 94.26. To eliminate this possible bias, the original database was
pre-processed before it was used for ML modeling [173].
In data pre-processing, the paramount goal is to ensure the accuracy
of the data by rectifying errors and eliminating duplicate values. Addi­
tionally, data transformation is a crucial step that involves standardi­
zation, aimed at harmonizing the scales of various parameters to prevent
biases in ML models [64]. As part of the pre-processing of the data for
the ML models, the StandardScaler technique was employed. The role of
the StandardScaler technique is to standardize the functional range of
the database [174,175]. This is achieved by removing the mean and
scaling each parameter to have a unit variance [176]. By ensuring
consistent scaling across different parameters, StandardScaler mitigates
the potential for biases in the data, thereby enhancing the overall per­
formance of the models [171]. It not only facilitates a common scale for
all parameters but also plays a pivotal role in reducing any inherent
biases in the dataset [177–179]. This standardization is imperative for
ML algorithms that are sensitive to the scale of input features. In­
consistencies in scaling could lead to suboptimal model performance,
and StandardScaler acts as a preventive measure against such issues [90,
137,180]. Furthermore, the utilization of StandardScaler in the
pre-processing is essential for creating a level playing field for various
features. Standardized data ensures that no single feature dominates the
learning process simply due to its scale [181,182]. This is particularly
crucial when dealing with algorithms that rely on distance metrics or
gradient-based optimization, as it helps prevent certain features from
disproportionately influencing the model [138,183].
2.4. Proposed ML models
To establish the predictive model CS of GrNCC, DT was used as an
individual ML model, while AR and BR were used as ensemble tech­
niques. Individual models were utilized as the foundation for the
development of ensemble models. In the present study, both ensemble
and individual modeling techniques are used. These techniques were
chosen because of their extensive application, specifically in concrete
[184]. The latest Anaconda program is utilized for both individual and
ensemble ML approaches. Anaconda Navigator’s Spyder (version 5.1.5)
is used to carry out all ensemble and individual models. The acquired

Fig. 5. Methodology used for the present study.

6
M. Khan et al.
dataset was split into two groups: the training set and the testing set. The
ML models were trained with 70 % of the data, and the remaining 30 %
data was used for testing the models. These developed models are used
to forecast the expected outcomes based on the given database. Fig. 5
illustrates the research methodology used for carrying out the present
study.
2.4.1. Multilinear regression
Generally, the regression models assess the correlation between
variables [185]. Multiple linear regression (MLR) models are regression
models that comprise one dependent variable and more than one
dependent variable [186]. In this case, a generalized linear relationship
is constructed, as shown in eq. (1), to calculate the values of a target
variable (CS) from input parameters (GD, GT, SC GC, US, CA, w/c).
Y = β0 + β1 x1 + β2 x2 + β3 x3 + … + βn xn (1)
Where y represents the forecasted value of CS while x1, x2, x3, …xn are
input variable values and β1, β2 , β3 , …βn denotes linear regression co­
efficients. In the present study, all proposed models were compared with
MLR.
2.4.2. Decision tree
Because of its adaptability to simulate higher-order nonlinearity and
easier interpretation, DT is a widely utilized approach in literature
[187]. The DT is a technique for classifying scenarios that include
complexity and categorization issues, using categories in the tree [188].
If no classes are available, the regression approach may be utilized to
determine the output using input variables [189]. DT is a classifier with
inner nodes reflecting data features. The decision rules are represented
by branches, while each leaf node depicts the conclusion. Leaf and de­
cision nodes are the two nodes that build DT. The reason for this tech­
nique’s designation is that it features a structure that closely matches
that of a tree, which grows outward from its roots [190]. The datasets
are divided into several groups by the DT. At each splitting segment, the
difference between the original and model values is determined. The
split point is the location with the smallest deviation between the
original value and the forecasted value, and the procedure is repeated to
identify the following split point. The DT schematic diagram is given in
Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of DT.
7
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
Fig. 6.
The decision tree method offers various advantages, such as its
interpretability and straightforward visualization [191]. The resultant
tree structure is easy to comprehend, resembling a sequence of choices
that culminate in a final prediction. Nevertheless, one notable drawback
of decision trees is their susceptibility to overfitting, where they may
capture noise from the training set and struggle to generalize effectively
to new, unseen data. To mitigate this issue, strategies like pruning,
establishing a minimum number of samples per leaf, or constraining the
maximum tree depth can be implemented [192].
2.4.3. AdaBoost regressor
The ensemble approach, a machine learning method, is used to
improve several models using a single algorithm [193]. A machine
learning approach called “boosting” is based on the idea of creating a
very reliable forecasted rule by merging several extremely faulty rules.
The AdaBoost method, founded by Freund and Schapire [194], is now
one of the most frequently used boosting algorithms. AdaBoost regressor
(AR) is particularly effective in improving predictive accuracy for
regression problems. Through its iterative process, the algorithm refines
its predictions, adapting to the complexity of the underlying data.
Furthermore, overfitting is a common concern in regression modeling,
especially with complex models [133]. AR mitigates this issue by
leveraging an ensemble of weak learners, each focusing on specific as­
pects of the data. This collective effort, along with techniques like
weighted contributions and pruning, contributes to the creation of a
more generalized and robust regression model. In addition, AR’s
strength lies in its sequential refinement process, where each weak
learner addresses specific nuances within the regression space [195].
This results in a precisely tuned regression model that captures the in­
tricacies of the data, leading to improved precision in predictions [196].
Fig. 7 depicts the overall process of the AR algorithm for predicting the
target value.
2.4.4. Bagging regressor
The Bagging regressor (BR), an effective ensemble learning tech­
nique, plays a pivotal role in enhancing the accuracy and robustness of
regression models. Bagging, a short form for Bootstrap Aggregating,
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

Fig. 7. AR algorithm schematic flow chart.

involves training multiple instances of the same regression algorithm on
random subsets of the training data and subsequently aggregating their
predictions [134]. This approach effectively mitigates the risk of over­
fitting by introducing diversity among the base learners. The ensemble’s
collective prediction is then determined through averaging or voting,
resulting in a more stable and reliable regression model [197]. One of
the notable advantages of the BR is its ability to handle outliers and
noise in the data, as the impact of individual instances is diminished
through the ensemble averaging process. Moreover, by parallelizing the
training of individual base learners, BR exhibits impressive scalability,
making it well-suited for large datasets. It is worth noting that the
versatility of the BR extends to various regression algorithms, making it
a flexible and widely applicable tool in ML modeling [133]. Overall, the
BR stands as a robust approach for improving predictive performance in
regression tasks, providing a resilient solution to challenges such as
overfitting and data variability. The BR exhibits superior performance
when handling intricate algorithms such as fully developed decision
trees. Conversely, boosting regressions tend to yield more accurate re­
sults when utilized with weak models, such as shallow decision trees
[77]. Fig. 8 depicts the process of the BR, which illustrates the complete
operation until the desired outcome is obtained.

Fig. 8. BR algorithm schematic flow chart.

8
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

2.5. Statistical indicators Table 2

External validation requirements.
The models’ performance is assessed by using various statistical er­ S.No. Equation conditions Suggested by
rors such as MAE R, RRMSE, RMSE, RSE, and performance index (ρ) are ∑n
1 (ei × mi) 0.85 < k < 1.15 [199]
provided as eqs. (2)–(7). It is important to mention that the RMSE, RSE k = i=1 2
∑n ei
and MAE are statistical indicators often employed in machine learning 2 (ei × mi) 0.85 < k < 1.15 [199]
k′ = i=1 2
to quantify error levels [198]. The lower the RMSE, RSE, and MAE, the mi
3 ̅ ⃒⃒
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ Rm > 0.5 [200]
more precise the prediction model is, which suggests its excellent
⃒
Rm = R2 × (1- ⃒R2 -R2o ⃒⃒)
R20 ≅ 1
accuracy. where R20 ′ ≅ 1
∑n ◦ 2
∑
n
R20 = 1 − i=1 (mi- ei )
|ei-mi| ∑n o 2
i=1 (mi- mi )
MAE = i=1 (2) ◦
ei = k × mi
n ∑n ◦ 2
(ei- mi )
R20 ′ = 1- ∑i=1
∑
n n
(ei- e o )2
(mi-ei)2 i=1 i
mi = k′ × ei
◦

RSE = i=1
∑n (3)
(ē-ei)2
3. Results and discussion
i=1

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√∑
√n 3.1. Decision tree model
√ (ei-mi)2
√
RMSE = i=1 (4)
n Fig. 9 shows the comparison between the experimental and DT
model forecasted values for CS of GrNCC. In addition, Fig. 9 also pro­
∑
n
(ei-ēi)(mi- mi) vides the equation for the ideal fit condition. The regression line slope
i=1
R = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (5) must be close to 1 for a perfect scenario. As shown in Fig. 9(a)–a sig­
∑ n ∑ n
(ei- ēi)2 (mi-mi)2 nificant correlation exists between the experimental and DT forecasted
i=1 i=1
values, as demonstrated by the regression line slope (0.876). Moreover,
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ these values of the original data set and model are comparable to each
√∑
√n
√ (ei-mi)2 other and close to perfect matching, showing the overall predictive
RRMSE =
1 √i=1
(6) potential of the DT model. In addition, it can be noticed that the majority
|ē| n of the data points are within ±20 % of relative error. Thus, it can be
concluded that the DT model accurately estimated the strength of
ρ=
RRMSE
(7) GrNCC.
1+R The error representation in the DT model is given in Fig. 9(b). It can
be observed that the DT model closely followed the experimental values.
Where mi and ei indicate the ith of the actual and model values,
The maximum and minimum errors in the DT model are 14.4 MPa and
respectively, and n is the number of data points. Whereas" mi “and " ēi"
0.0002 MPa, respectively, whereas the average error is 3.8 MPa.
show the mean of the model and actual values, respectively.
Moreover, it is worth noticing that the frequencies of higher errors are
The R provides the linearity between output and input data, a good
very low. For example, 48.3 % of predicted values have less than 3 MPa
measure of the model’s validity and precision [188]. When the value of
of absolute error, 21.5 % of error values are between 3 and 5 MPa, and 3
R exceeds 0.8, it signifies a favorable correlation between the model and
% are more than 5 MPa.
observed values [189,190]. Nonetheless, R is insensitive to the multi­
plication or division of the output with a number, so it is not a complete
measure of the model’s accuracy. RMSE and MAE are two other metrics 3.2. AdaBoost model
that can be utilized to check the accuracy of models. RMSE measures the
average size of the errors by squaring them before averaging, while MAE The comparison between measured and AdaBoost predicted values is
determines the mean size of the errors without squaring them. RMSE illustrated in Fig. 10 (a). The suggested model seems to be trained well
assigns greater importance to significant errors, while MAE treats all on input data because it has produced highly precise and reliable pre­
errors with equal importance, disregarding their magnitude. A model is dicted values for CS. Gholampour et al. [201] reported that the precision
deemed exceptional when the value of ρ is 0.2 [190]. and reliability of a predicted model are significantly impacted by the
In addition, external validation of the models was conducted by number of data points. This research utilized a substantial dataset of 172
employing assessment measures proposed by previous authors, as indi­ data points obtained from existing literature, which contributed to the
cated in Table 2. Golbraikh and Tropsha [199] introduced a criterion enhanced precision of the model. In addition, the AR model exhibited a
stating that the slope of one of the regression lines (denoted as k or kꞌ) significant correlation of 0.893, indicating its robust performance in
that passes through the origin should ideally approach a value of 1. estimating the strength of graphene nanoparticles-reinforced cementi­
Moreover, Golbraikh and Tropsha [199] also stated that correlation tious composites. Moreover, the AR model provided the majority of the
coefficients for regression lines passing through the origin (either pre­ data points within the ±20 % of relative error.
dicting versus observed or observed versus predicted), at least one, and Furthermore, the absolute error representation of the AR model is
illustrated in Fig. 10(b). The maximum, minimum, and mean errors in
preferably both, i.e., R20 or R20 ′, should be close to 1. Roy and Roy [200]
the DT model are 23.6, 0.0016, and 3.62, respectively. Based on the
reported that the confirming indicator (Rm) must be higher than 0.5 for a
error analysis, 61.62 % of errors fall below 3 MPa, 15.11 % are in the
valid ML prediction model.
range of 3–5 MPa, 17.45 % are between 5 and 10 MPa, and only 5.18 %
of error values are more than 10 MPa.

3.3. Bagging model

Fig. 11 illustrates the comparison between BR-predicted and

9
M. Khan et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison of DT-predicted CS and experimental CS: (a) Regression
plot, (b) Error representation.
experimental CS. The established model has accurately predicted CS. As
shown in Fig. 11(a)–a good correlation is achieved, as illustrated by the
regression line slope closer to 0.80. The regression slope of the BR model
is closer to the recommended threshold of 0.80. However, it is consid­
erably lower than that of the DT and AR models. The AR and DT models
consistently exhibit relative errors within the ±20 % range for the ma­
jority of data points. In contrast, the BR model displays deviations
beyond the ±20 % error threshold for many data points, showing its
inferior performance compared to the DT and AR models.
Similarly, Fig. 11(b) shows the absolute error between the BR model
forecasted and actual values. The highest, lowest, and average errors are
19.45, 5.02, and 0.0017, respectively. 38.37 % of errors are below 3
MPa, 25.58 % and 20.93 % are between 3-5 MPa and 5–10 MPa,
respectively, while the remaining 15.12 % of error values are greater
than 10 MPa. Overall, the error distribution pattern shows that the AR
and DT models have excellent prediction potential compared to the BR
model. However, the errors in all three models are in the acceptable
range.
10
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
Fig. 10. Comparison of AR-predicted CS and experimental CS: (a) Regression
plot, (b) Error representation.
3.4. Performance assessment of models
The number of data sets is crucial for establishing an accurate ML
model. Therefore, a wide range of data points (172) has been collected to
develop the three ML models. It is suggested that the ratio of data points
to the number of input variables must be close to 3, and a ratio of 5 is
preferable [202]. This ratio in the current study is 24.57, which is
significantly high. As previously stated, the efficiency of all three models
is assessed using various statistical measures. The values of all these
errors are given in Table 3 for both testing and training sets. The DT
model demonstrated the highest R-value of 0.9834, surpassing AR with
0.9790 and BR with 0.9533 for the training set. Similarly, the three
suggested models exhibited R-values of 0.80 for the testing set.
Furthermore, both the DT and AR models yielded closely aligned scores
for RMSE, MAE, and RSE. These lower scores of error indicators strongly
suggest the excellent performance of both models in accurately esti­
mating the strength of GrNCC. In contrast, the BR model exhibited
slightly higher error values in comparison to the DT and AR models. The
higher correlation and lower error of the DT and AR model compared to
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

Fig. 12. Radar plot showing the performance of the models: (a) Training,
Fig. 11. Comparison of BR-predicted CS and experimental CS: (a) Regression (b) Testing.
plot, (b) Error representation.
3.5. External validation of the proposed models
Table 3
Assessment of various statistical errors for the developed models.
Table 4 depicts the values of the additional criteria employed for
validating the models. It has been suggested that k or k′ values must be
Model MAE RSE RMSE R RRMSE ρ
closer to one [199]. Roy and Roy [200] reported confirming indicators
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(Rm) to test the model’s forecasting capacity. This criterion is attained
Training when the value of Rm surpasses 0.5. Table 4 demonstrates that all models
DT 3.5347 0.0455 4.6166 0.9834 0.0952 0.0480
AR 3.4464 0.0435 4.5174 0.9790 0.0931 0.0471
satisfied the validation criteria, showing that the models are valid and
BR 4.8677 0.0976 6.7653 0.9533 0.1395 0.0714 can estimate the output accurately.
Testing
DT 4.5991 0.3257 5.4416 0.8725 0.0790 0.0422
AR 4.5435 0.3942 6.4416 0.8220 0.0950 0.0539
BR 5.4187 0.4296 6.7251 0.8002 0.1386 0.0779 Table 4
External validation criteria.

the BR model is also illustrated in Fig. 12. Furthermore, the performance Parameter DT model AR model BR model

index scores of the three developed models is significantly lower than K 0.95765 0.99972 0.99834
the suggested threshold of 0.20, indicating the robust and reliable esti­ K’ 1.04421 1.00429 1.00166
Rm 0.78934 0.81342 0.79151
mations of the developed models.
R20 ′ 0.99174 0.99521 0.98543
R2o 0.97188 0.98231 0.97132

11
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

3.6. Comparing the proposed models with multilinear regression model

In the current study, the proposed models (DT, AR, BR) were also
compared with the MLR model. Firstly, formulation for MLR models was
derived, which considered all the influencing input variables, as shown
in eq. (8). MLR is a simple correlation between input and output vari­
ables. Consequently, the MLR model may not precisely predict the CS
value. The R-value for MLR is 0.747, which is comparatively less precise
compared to DT, AR, and BR models. In addition, the MLR model
exhibited predictions with an MAE score of 10.369 MPa and an RMSE
score of 12.650 MPa. Fig. 13(a)–(c) illustrates the comparison of the
linear regression model with DT, AR, and BR, respectively. Moreover,
Fig. 13(a)–(c) shows that MLR failed to adequately cover the lower limit
compressive strength well, which obstructs the practical implementa­
tion of MLR in filed applications.

CSMLR = 49.59-1.40(SC)-0.16(GD) + 1.13(GT)

+ 0.07(GC)-57.89(w / c) + 5.33(US) + 0.92(CA) (8)

These outcomes imply that ML-based models outperformed MLR. For

instance, the RMSEtesting of the DT model is 56.99 % less than that of the
MLR model. Similarly, the RMSEtesting of AR and BR models is 49.72 %
and 46.24 % lower than the RMSE score of the MLR model. The limi­
tations of these statistical regression procedures arise from their reliance
on pre-defined functions within forecast models [202]. This is particu­
larly relevant in the context of concrete, a complex and nonhomoge­
neous material with intricate interactions among its constituents, often
leading to nonlinear behavior. One notable drawback of the MLR model
is its assumption of a linear relationship between parameters, an
assumption that may not consistently hold true in the case of concrete.
For instance, in this research, the MLR model overestimated the coeffi­
cient of water-to-cement ratio (− 57.89); on the other hand, it under­
estimated the coefficients of curing age (+0.92) and graphene particle
thickness (+1.13), which is in contrast with the SHAP analysis findings.
Concrete’s complexity stems from its nonhomogeneous nature, where
the interactions among various constituents defy simple linear correla­
tions. This inherent complexity challenges the efficacy of the MLR
model, contributing to its lower accuracy when compared to more
advanced ML methods.
In acknowledging the intricacies of concrete as a material, it becomes
evident that the linear assumptions of the MLR model are insufficient to
capture the nuanced relationships between its components. Machine
Learning methods, on the other hand, offer the flexibility to adapt to the
nonlinearities present in concrete’s behavior, thus providing a more
accurate representation of the underlying complexities. This nuanced
understanding is crucial for developing models that can effectively
predict and analyze concrete-related phenomena, ensuring a more
robust and reliable approach to forecasting.

4. Comparison of the developed models and discussion

In this section, the proposed models were compared utilizing various

statistical checks, as illustrated in Table 4, to choose the best estimating
ML model. The comparison of the proposed models is shown in Fig. 14.
The DT and AR models exhibited comparable performance, showing
higher correlations (R) and minimized error metrics (RMSE, MAE)
during both training and testing. Conversely, the MLR and BR models
exhibited subpar performance, reflecting a significant divergence in
their outcomes to estimate the strength of GrNCC. For instance, the
MAEtraining and MAEtesting of the DT model are 27.37 % and 14.97 % less
than the RMSE scores of the BR model, respectively. Similarly, the Fig. 13. Comparison of MLR model with ML models: (a) DT, (b) AR, (c) BR.
MAEtraining of the AR model is 29.36 % and MAEtesting 18.08 % less than
the BR model. This higher accuracy of the DT and AR models shows the Taylor diagram offers a concise visual representation of the model’s
suitability of these models to estimate the strength of GrNCC. performance by comparing their correlation and standard deviation of
In addition, the performance of the developed prediction models was observed data against a reference point, providing insights into the
also compared using the Taylor diagram, as illustrated in Fig. 15. The effectiveness of each model in capturing and predicting the complex

12
M. Khan et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837

predecessor. In a way, the weaker learner is transformed into a stronger

one. On the contrary, bagging is an approach to randomly choosing a
sample value from the dataset using an alternate approach, allowing for
the selection of new data values. Based on the objective, the mean of
these anticipated values yields a more precise estimation. Such weaker
models are trained individually following the production of multiple
data samples. The performance of each model was assessed to select the
best predictive modeling technique. All the proposed ML models
strongly comply with the error limits of external validation, and the
error limit was in the acceptance range. However, it was concluded that
the DT and AR have strong prediction potential to estimate the strength
of graphene nano-particles cementitious campsites.

5. Comparison of the suggested models with literature models

Table 5 illustrates the comparison of the suggested models estab­

Fig. 14. Comparison of DT, AR, BR, and MLR models.
lished in the current with the developed models in literature for the
compressive strength of graphene nanoparticles-reinforced cementitious
composites. Alabduljabbar et al. [75] developed gene expression pro­
gramming (GEP) and conducted a comparative analysis of the GEP
model with traditional statistical MLR and nonlinear regression (NLR)
models. It was reported that the machine learning-based model (GEP)
outperformed the MLR and NLR models in terms of the lowest MAE score
and higher correlation value. Furthermore, Sun et al. [102] utilized the
random forest (RF) approach optimized with beetle antennae search
(BAS) to establish a prediction model for CS of cementitious composites
containing slag and graphite powder. The RF-BAS model achieved
excellent prediction performance, as evidenced by a higher R-value of
0.997 [102]. The analysis of feature importance based on the RF model
reveals that age holds the utmost significance in determining the
strength of GrNCC [102]. Similarly, Dong et al. [101] used
Bayesian-tuned XGBoost model to estimate the compressive strength of
GrNCC. The Bayesian-tuned XGBoost model exhibited a strong correla­
tion value of 0.9479 and an MAE value of 3.44, as provided in Table 5.
Moreover, Montazerian et al. [203] employed three different ML
methods, such as DT, SVR, and multilayer perception (MLP), to estimate
the strength of cementitious materials reinforced graphene derivatives.
These three models provided a comparable prediction accuracy. In
addition, Yang et al. [204] developed multiple models such as SVR, RF,

Table 5
Comparison of the suggested models with developed models in the literature.
Fig. 15. Taylor diagram showing the comparison of the models.
Author(s) Model Input Interpretability Performance
Variables method
relationships in the composite material. This graphical analysis allows R MAE
for a comprehensive assessment of how well each model aligns with (MPa)

experimental data (red color) and aids in identifying the most suitable Alabduljabbar GEP 7 SHAP 0.960 1.62
model for accurate strength estimation in graphene nanoparticle et al. [75]
MLR 0.626 11.22
cementitious composites. The optimal model among the considered ones
NLR 0.733 7.70
is identified by its proximity to the reference point, which represents the Sun et al. [102] RF-BAS 7 Parametric 0.997 –
experimental results (red color). This proximity signifies a higher degree analysis
of agreement between the model predictions and the observed data, Dong et al. Bayesian- 8 – 0.949 3.44
making it a more reliable choice for accurately estimating the strength of [101] tuned
XGBoost
graphene nanoparticle cementitious composites. It can be observed that
MLP 9 Sensitivity 0.90 –
among the considered models, DT and AR are closer to the reference Montazerian SVR analysis 0.927 –
point compared to the MLR and DT models, as illustrated in Fig. 15. This et al. [203]
indicates the higher accuracy of the AR and DT models in estimating the DT 0.911 –
Yang et al. SVR 5 Feature 0.90 5.46
strength of GrNCC.
[204] significance
The present work focused on the utilization of both ensembled and RF using AGT 0.918 4.93
individual ML models to forecast the CS of GrNCC. The DT model is a AGT 0.958 3.69
predictive algorithm that recursively partitions data into subsets based ANN-I 0.951 3.75
on the most significant features, creating a tree-like structure to facili­ ANN-II 0.953 3.77
ANN-III 0.954 3.54
tate decision-making and predictive analysis. Furthermore, boosting is
Present study DT 7 SHAP 0.9834 3.53
utilized in supervised learning to minimize inconsistency and bias. AR 0.9790 3.45
Except for the first learner, every successive learner is created from a BR 0.9533 4.87

13
M. Khan et al.
AutoGluon-tabular (AGT), and ANN. Three different architectures, such
as 30-37-20-27-1 (ANN-III), 30-41-84-1 (ANN-II), and 30-54-1
(ANN-III), were selected to establish three unique ANN models. The
ANN-III model provided excellent estimation accuracy compared to the
ANN-II and ANN-I models. Moreover, Yang et al. [204] reported that
among the different ML models, the AGT model not only exhibits the
highest confidence in predictions but also provides enhanced inter­
pretability of outcomes. Furthermore, users can efficiently train the AGT
model in comparison to conventional ML workflows, avoiding the
laborious task of hyperparameter tuning [204].
The three models developed in this study (DT, AR, BR) performed
comparably well with existing models reported in the literature for
predicting the compressive strength of GrNCC. For instance, while the
mean MAE score of a previous model stood at 4.912 MPa, the DT, AR,
and BR models exhibited competitive MAE values of 3.53 MPa, 3.45
MPa, and 4.87 MPa, respectively. Although the GEP and RF-BAS models
exhibited higher accuracy than the models developed in this study, it is
noteworthy that the current investigation considered both ensemble
models (AR, BR) and standalone models (DT) for estimating the
compressive strength of GrNCC. This comparative analysis underscores
the effectiveness of the current study-developed models in alignment
with existing literature. In addition, the current study also utilized the
SHAP approach for model interpretation.
6. Model interpretability based on the SHAP approach
Although several machine learning research in building materials
have demonstrated outstanding performance in forecasting the target
property, understanding the ML models has received limited attention.
For determining feature significance in ML models, several studies
employed decision techniques and intuitive methods [205]. Lundberg
and Lee’s [206] SHAP evaluation is an approach for examining ML
models that use the notion of Shapely Additive exPlanations (SHAP).
The SHAP method was devised to assess the proportionate relevance of
all input factors to the target parameter and determine whether input
variables have a beneficial or negative effect on the target [207,208].
The SHAP approach is well discussed in references [207,208]. The SHAP
score reveals the importance of each input attribute on the output. This
method is similar to parametric evaluation in that one variable is
changed, whereas the other factors remain constant to analyze how
variations in one input variable impact the result. In this study, the SHAP
is employed to offer variable significance and effect interpretations for
each input feature.
Fig. 16. Relative contribution of input parameters.
14
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
6.1. Parameter importance
The importance of the input variable for the CS of GrNCC is plotted in
Fig. 16. This figure provides the mean SHAP value, which indicates the
influence of input data on output (CS). The CS of GrNCC was mostly
impacted by the GrN thickness (GT), as indicated by a higher mean
SHAP value of approximately 8. The physical characteristics of GrN (GT,
GD), CA, and w/c have higher contributions in estimating the CS of
GrNCC. It is obvious that over time, the strength properties of GrNCC get
enhanced. The GT and GD define the contact area of GrN components
with the cement matrix. In contrast, the US, GC, and SC have less sig­
nificance in estimating the compressive strength of GrNCC, as the mean
SHAP values of these features are below 1.
6.2. Parameter influence
Analyzing the SHAP scores of input features to acquire a better un­
derstanding of how the significant feature affects the target output. The
mean of the feature’s SHAP scores reveals the effect of the given input
attribute on the target property. The summary plot used to depict the
influence of attributes of the input variables is shown in Fig. 17, wherein
each dot represents the SHAP value that corresponds to a specific
dataset. The y-axis of this plot shows the variables used as inputs in the
study and their importance in order of decreasing significance, while the
x-axis shows the l SHAP score. The color of the dotted circles represents
the intensity of influence, which varies from minimal (blue) to strong
(red), and the dots indicate data records. A significant feature value for
each variable indicates that this input variable is beneficial to the
outcome.
The SHAP summary plot is displayed in Fig. 17, which illustrates
whether the input feature positively or negatively impacts the output
property. High values of GT and CA are shown by the dot in red and can
be linked with significantly positive SHAP features, while, on the other
hand, lower GT and CA concentrations – represented by dots in blue can
be related to negative SHAP values for CS. The proposed model is
approached to enhance its CS prediction in response to a data point with
a high GT and curing age. Similarly, it is noted that increasing the w/c
ratio increases CS up to a certain point, and then further increasing the
water-binder ratio reduces compressive strength. In the same way,
higher values of GD and SC unfavorably impact CS. In addition, GC
concentration does not considerably affect compressive strength. These
findings are based on the information utilized in this investigation, and
more data points may yield more accurate results.
M. Khan et al.
Fig. 17. SHAP summary plot based on AR showing the influence of input parameters on the output.
7. Limitations of the study and future research directions
The current study is built upon a dataset comprising 172 data points,
which is very limited. However, to further enhance the robustness and
precision of the models, there is a recognized need for a more expansive
and enriched dataset. Developing a larger dataset will not only enhance
the precision of the models but also enhance the generalizability of the
ML models. While the current study leverages the global interpretability
offered by the SHAP approach, there exists untapped potential for more
insights through local interpretation techniques. In future in­
vestigations, incorporating methodologies such as SHAP feature inter­
action analyses, dependence plots, and force plots along with LIME
(Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations), ICE (Individual
Conditional Expectation), and PDP (Partial Dependence Plots) can un­
ravel intricate details in the domain of ML modeling for graphene
nanoparticle-reinforced cementitious composites. Additionally, hybrid
models optimized through metaheuristic optimization techniques such
as the Human Felicity Algorithm (HFA), Harris Hawks Algorithm (HHA),
and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) hold the potential to enhance
the precision and reliability of predictions for the strength characteris­
tics of GrNCC. These advanced optimization strategies can contribute to
refining the model’s ability to capture intricate patterns and relation­
ships within the data, ultimately leading to more accurate and robust
predictions. Moreover, it is recommended to conduct a comparative
analysis of graphene and its potential substitutes by employing a com­
bination of experimental research and machine learning-based modeling
analyses.
8. Conclusion
Contemporary concrete infrastructure demands structural elements
characterized by greater mechanical strength and durability. A viable
remedy involves the incorporation of nanomaterials into concrete to
improve its mechanical properties. Nevertheless, the intricacies of such
nanoscale cementitious composites are highly complex due to their
multiscale complexity. However, conducting experimental in­
vestigations is time-intensive and laborious. Traditional regression
models encounter limitations in capturing these intricate compositions
to provide accurate and reliable estimations. Accordingly, this study
utilized ensemble (AR, BR) and individual (DT) machine-learning al­
gorithms to forecast the compressive strength of graphene nanoparticle-
reinforced cementitious composites. For robust model development, 172
15
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
data points were collected from 31 published articles. The compressive
strength ranges from 14.59 MPa to 94.26 MPa. In addition, the graphene
content ranges from 0.01 wt% to 6.4 wt%, with a mean value of 0.26 wt
%. The suggested models are fine-tuned through rigorous hyper­
parameter optimization, and the optimal models were reported in the
study. The following major findings may be derived from the current
study:
1. The AR, DT, and BR models demonstrated outstanding predictive
accuracy with R-values of 0.983, 0.979, and 0.953, respectively.
Similarly, the AR, DT, and BR models predicted the experimental
compressive strength data with MAE scores of 3.53 MPa, 3.45 MPa,
and 4.87 MPa, respectively. The developed models closely followed
the experimental CS values, indicating their robust and reliable
performance in estimating the CS of graphene nanoparticle-
reinforced cementitious composites.
2. Comparative analysis of the suggested models indicated that the DT
and AR model outperformed the BR model. The MAEtraining and
MAEtesting of the DT model are 27.37 % and 14.97 % less than the
MAE scores of the BR model, respectively. Similarly, the MAEtraining
of the AR model is 29.36 %, and MAEtesting is 18.08 % less than the
BR model. This higher accuracy of the DT and AR models show the
suitability of these models to estimate the strength of GrNCC.
3. The developed ML-based models exhibited higher accuracy
compared to the traditional statistical model (MLR) model. The
RMSEtesting of AR and BR models is 49.72 % and 46.24 % lower than
the RMSE score of the MLR model. These statistical regression
methods have limitations due to their dependence on pre-defined
functions in forecast models. In the case of concrete, a complex
and nonhomogeneous material with intricate interactions, often
exhibiting nonlinear behavior, the MLR model’s assumption of a
linear relationship between parameters may not consistently hold
true. This leads to the poor performance of the statistical regression
models, which obstructs their practical implementation in the field.
4. The SHAP feature importance analysis indicated that the graphite
nanoparticle thickness (GT) and curing age (CA) significantly
contribute to estimating the compressive strength of GrNCC. In
addition, nanoparticle diameter and water-to-cement ratio (wc) also
have higher significance in predicting the CS of GrNCC. Moreover,
the SHAP summary plot provided that increasing the GT and CA
substantially enhances the CS, while the increasing water-to-cement
ratio reduces the compressive strength of GrNCC.
M. Khan et al.
5. This research used promising methods for predicting the compressive
strength of GrNCC based on established experimental data. The uti­
lization of machine learning, along with the interpretability
approach, not only establishes reliable and applicable prediction
models but also provides insights into the mechanical properties of
GrNCC. Furthermore, ML-based predictions save time and reduce the
need for labour-intensive laboratory testing, providing early esti­
mates of cementitious materials’ strength properties.
This study also highlights the need for a larger dataset to improve ML
model precision and generalizability. While utilizing global interpret­
ability with SHAP, future work should explore local interpretation
techniques such as LIME, ICE, and PDP. In addition, it is suggested that
hybrid models optimized with metaheuristic algorithms such as HFA,
HHA, and PSO be developed to enhance the prediction accuracy of the
models. Moreover, it is recommended to conduct a comparative analysis
of graphene and its potential substitutes by employing a combination of
experimental research and machine learning-based modeling analyses.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Majid Khan: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Roz-
Ud-Din Nassar: Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Data curation. Waqar Anwar: Writing – review & editing, Visualization,
Validation, Supervision, Resources. Mazhar Rasheed: Writing – review
& editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Taoufik Najeh:
Writing – review & editing, Software, Funding acquisition. Yaser
Gamil: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Funding acquisition.
Furqan Farooq: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis,
Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101837.
References
[1] Z.S. Metaxa, A.K. Tolkou, S. Efstathiou, A. Rahdar, E.P. Favvas, A.C. Mitropoulos,
G.Z. Kyzas, Nanomaterials in cementitious composites: an Update, Molecules 26
(2021) 1430, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26051430.
[2] G. Goel, P. Sachdeva, A.K. Chaudhary, Y. Singh, The use of nanomaterials in
concrete: a review, Mater. Today Proc. 69 (2022) 365–371, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.051.
[3] M. Jalal, E. Mansouri, M. Sharifipour, A.R. Pouladkhan, Mechanical, rheological,
durability and microstructural properties of high performance self-compacting
concrete containing SiO2 micro and nanoparticles, Mater. Des. 34 (2012)
389–400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.08.037.
[4] S. Kawashima, P. Hou, D.J. Corr, S.P. Shah, Modification of cement-based
materials with nanoparticles, Cem. Concr. Compos. 36 (2013) 8–15, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.06.012.
[5] H. Li, H. Xiao, J. Yuan, J. Ou, Microstructure of cement mortar with nano-
particles, Composites, Part B 35 (2004) 185–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1359-8368(03)00052-0.
[6] Z. Li, H. Wang, S. He, Y. Lu, M. Wang, Investigations on the preparation and
mechanical properties of the nano-alumina reinforced cement composite, Mater.
Lett. 60 (2006) 356–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2005.08.061.
[7] X. Wang, S. Ding, L. Qiu, A. Ashour, Y. Wang, B. Han, J. Ou, Improving bond of
fiber-reinforced polymer bars with concrete through incorporating
16
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
nanomaterials, Composites, Part B 239 (2022) 109960, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesb.2022.109960.
[8] G.F. Huseien, A review on concrete composites modified with nanoparticles,
J. Compos. Sci. 7 (2023) 67, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs7020067.
[9] H.U. Ahmed, A.A. Mohammed, A.S. Mohammed, The role of nanomaterials in
geopolymer concrete composites: a state-of-the-art review, J. Build. Eng. 49
(2022) 104062, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104062.
[10] J.A. Abdalla, B.S. Thomas, R.A. Hawileh, K.I. Syed Ahmed Kabeer, Influence of
nanomaterials on the workability and compressive strength of cement-based
concrete, Mater. Today Proc. 65 (2022) 2073–2076, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2022.06.429.
[11] Q. Fu, Z. Zhou, Z. Wang, J. Huang, D. Niu, Insight into dynamic compressive
response of carbon nanotube/carbon fiber-reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 129 (2022) 104471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2022.104471.
[12] J. Wang, S. Dong, S.D. Pang, C. Zhou, B. Han, Pore structure characteristics of
concrete composites with surface-modified carbon nanotubes, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 128 (2022) 104453, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2022.104453.
[13] Y. Gao, H. Jing, Z. Yu, L. Li, J. Wu, W. Chen, Particle size distribution of aggregate
effects on the reinforcing roles of carbon nanotubes in enhancing concrete ITZ,
Construct. Build. Mater. 327 (2022) 126964, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2022.126964.
[14] B.N. Al-Kharabsheh, M.M. Arbili, A. Majdi, S.M. Alogla, A. Hakamy, J. Ahmad, A.
F. Deifalla, Basalt fiber reinforced concrete: a compressive review on durability
aspects, Materials 16 (2023) 429, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16010429.
[15] T. Chen, Z. Wang, A. Wang, E. Bai, X. Zhu, Comparative study on the static and
dynamic mechanical properties and micro-mechanism of carbon fiber and carbon
nanofiber reinforced concrete, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 18 (2023) e01827,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01827.
[16] M. Cimesa, M.A. Moustafa, Experimental characterization and analytical
assessment of compressive behavior of carbon nanofibers enhanced UHPC, Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 17 (2022) e01487, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.
e01487.
[17] L. Li, B. Wang, M.H. Hubler, Carbon nanofibers (CNFs) dispersed in ultra-high
performance concrete (UHPC): mechanical property, workability and
permeability investigation, Cem. Concr. Compos. 131 (2022) 104592, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104592.
[18] C. Liu, X. Hunag, Y.-Y. Wu, X. Deng, Z. Zheng, B. Yang, Studies on mechanical
properties and durability of steel fiber reinforced concrete incorporating
graphene oxide, Cem. Concr. Compos. 130 (2022) 104508, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104508.
[19] P. Zhan, J. Xu, J. Wang, J. Zuo, Z. He, A review of recycled aggregate concrete
modified by nanosilica and graphene oxide: materials, performances and
mechanism, J. Clean. Prod. 375 (2022) 134116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.134116.
[20] W. Li, F. Qu, W. Dong, G. Mishra, S.P. Shah, A comprehensive review on self-
sensing graphene/cementitious composites: a pathway toward next-generation
smart concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 331 (2022) 127284, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127284.
[21] P.P. Kulkarni, J.N. Mandal, Strength evaluation of soil stabilized with nano silica-
cement mixes as road construction material, Construct. Build. Mater. 314 (2022)
125363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125363.
[22] H.U. Ahmed, A.S. Mohammed, R.H. Faraj, S.M.A. Qaidi, A.A. Mohammed,
Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete modified with nano-silica:
experimental and modeling investigations, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (2022)
e01036, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01036.
[23] A. Hakamy, F.U.A. Shaikh, I.M. Low, Characteristics of nanoclay and calcined
nanoclay-cement nanocomposites, Composites, Part B 78 (2015) 174–184,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.03.074.
[24] V.C. Khed, V. Pesaralanka, M. Adamu, Y.E. Ibrahim, M. Azab, M.A.K. Reddy,
A. Hakamy, A.F. Deifalla, Optimization of graphene oxide incorporated in fly ash-
based self-compacting concrete, Buildings 12 (2022) 2002, https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings12112002.
[25] B.N. AL-Kharabsheh, M.M. Arbili, A. Majdi, J. Ahmad, A.F. Deifalla, A. Hakamy,
A review on strength and durability properties of Wooden ash based concrete,
Materials 15 (2022) 7282, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15207282.
[26] E. Bahşi, O. Şahin, H. İlcan, B. Uzal, M.F. Günal, G. Yıldırım, M. Şahmaran, Role
of inclusion size distribution of titanium dioxide on the nitrogen oxides reduction
capability and microstructural characteristics of cementitious systems, Construct.
Build. Mater. 318 (2022) 125992, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.125992.
[27] M.C. Chen, P.W. Koh, V.K. Ponnusamy, S.L. Lee, Titanium dioxide and other
nanomaterials based antimicrobial additives in functional paints and coatings:
review, Prog. Org. Coating 163 (2022) 106660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
porgcoat.2021.106660.
[28] P.K. Akarsh, D. Shrinidhi, S. Marathe, A.K. Bhat, Graphene oxide as nano-material
in developing sustainable concrete – a brief review, Mater. Today Proc. 60 (2022)
234–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.510.
[29] J. Ahmad, S.R. Abid, M.M. Arbili, A. Majdi, A. Hakamy, A.F. Deifalla, A review on
sustainable concrete with the Partially Substitutions of silica fume as a
cementitious material, Sustainability 14 (2022) 12075, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su141912075.
[30] J.A. Abdalla, B.S. Thomas, R.A. Hawileh, K.I. Syed Ahmed Kabeer, Influence of
nanomaterials on the water absorption and chloride penetration of cement-based
M. Khan et al.
concrete, Mater. Today Proc. 65 (2022) 2066–2069, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2022.06.427.
[31] A. Mohammed, S. Rafiq, W. Mahmood, R. Noaman, H. AL-Darkazali, K. Ghafor,
W. Qadir, Microstructure characterizations, thermal properties, yield stress,
plastic viscosity and compression strength of cement paste modified with
nanosilica, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (2020) 10941–10956, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.07.083.
[32] M. Amin, K. Abu el-hassan, Effect of using different types of nano materials on
mechanical properties of high strength concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 80
(2015) 116–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.075.
[33] R.M. Ashwini, M. Potharaju, V. Srinivas, S. Kanaka Durga, G.V. Rathnamala,
A. Paudel, Compressive and flexural strength of concrete with different
nanomaterials: a critical review, J. Nanomater. 2023 (2023) 1–15, https://doi.
org/10.1155/2023/1004597.
[34] J. Xu, S. Ashraf, S. Khan, X. Chen, A. Akbar, F. Farooq, Micro-cracking pattern
recognition of hybrid CNTs/GNPs cement pastes under three-point bending
loading using acoustic emission technique, J. Build. Eng. 42 (2021) 102816,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102816.
[35] M. Amran, A.M. Onaizi, N. Makul, H.S. Abdelgader, W.C. Tang, B.T. Alsulami, A.
E. Alluqmani, Y. Gamil, Shrinkage mitigation in alkali-activated composites: a
comprehensive insight into the potential applications for sustainable
construction, Results Eng 20 (2023) 101452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rineng.2023.101452.
[36] I. Elfaleh, F. Abbassi, M. Habibi, F. Ahmad, M. Guedri, M. Nasri, C. Garnier,
A comprehensive review of natural fibers and their composites: an eco-friendly
alternative to conventional materials, Results Eng 19 (2023) 101271, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101271.
[37] M.O. Mohsen, R. Taha, A. Abu Taqa, N. Al-Nuaimi, R.A. Al-Rub, K.A. Bani-Hani,
Effect of nanotube Geometry on the strength and dispersion of CNT-cement
composites, J. Nanomater. 2017 (2017) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/
6927416.
[38] J.H.A. Rocha, R.D. Toledo Filho, N.G. Cayo-Chileno, Sustainable alternatives to
CO2 reduction in the cement industry: a short review, Mater. Today Proc. 57
(2022) 436–439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.565.
[39] T.R. Kramer C, M. Schauerte, T. Kowald, CNT-stabilized € foam concrete on the
basis of ultra high performance concrete (UHPC), in: 14th Int. Congr. Chem. Cem,
2015, p. 377.
[40] H. Lin, Y. Han, S. Liang, F. Gong, S. Han, C. Shi, P. Feng, Effects of low
temperatures and cryogenic freeze-thaw cycles on concrete mechanical
properties: a literature review, Construct. Build. Mater. 345 (2022) 128287,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128287.
[41] M. Khan, M. Shakeel, K. Khan, S. Akbar, A. Khan, A review on fiber-reinforced
foam concrete, in: ICEC 2022, MDPI, Basel Switzerland, 2022, p. 13, https://doi.
org/10.3390/engproc2022022013.
[42] M. Anas, M. Khan, H. Bilal, S. Jadoon, M.N. Khan, Fiber reinforced concrete: a
review, in: ICEC 2022, MDPI, Basel Switzerland, 2022, p. 3, https://doi.org/
10.3390/engproc2022022003.
[43] M.K. Adil Khan, Majid Khan, Shahid Ali, Use of Marble dust as a filler material in
flexible pavements, in: 4th Int. Conf. Sustain. Civ. Eng. CUST, Islam. Pakistan,
2022.
[44] A.K. Khalid Khan, Inayat ullah khan, majid khan, muhammad shakeel,
mechanical and physical properties of cellular lightweight concrete (CLC) blocks,
in: Ist Int. Conf. Adv. Civ. Environ. Eng. UET Taxila, Pakistan, 2022.
[45] A.K, M.S. Junaid Khan Muhammad Shahab, Majid Khan, Investigation of physical
and rheological properties of bitumen modified with bagasse ash, in: ICCRDM-
2022, Peshawar UET Peshawar, 2022. SBN 969-23645-1-5.
[46] H.A, M.R. Muhammad Shahab, Hamza Jamal, Majid Khan, Non-linear
charateristics of asphalt concrete under repeated cyclic loading, in: ICCRDM-
2022, Peshawar UET Peshawar, 2022. ISBN 969-23645-1-5.
[47] W.L. Baloch, R.A. Khushnood, W. Khaliq, Influence of multi-walled carbon
nanotubes on the residual performance of concrete exposed to high temperatures,
Construct. Build. Mater. 185 (2018) 44–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.07.051.
[48] A. Mosavi, Y. Faghan, P. Ghamisi, P. Duan, S.F. Ardabili, E. Salwana, S.S. Band,
Comprehensive review of deep reinforcement learning methods and applications
in economics, Mathematics 8 (2020) 1640, https://doi.org/10.3390/
math8101640.
[49] S. Samadianfard, S. Jarhan, E. Salwana, A. Mosavi, S. Shamshirband, S. Akib,
Support vector regression integrated with fruit fly optimization algorithm for
river flow forecasting in lake urmia basin, Water 11 (2019) 1934, https://doi.
org/10.3390/w11091934.
[50] D. Mohammadzadeh S, S.-F. Kazemi, A. Mosavi, E. Nasseralshariati, J.H.M. Tah,
Prediction of compression index of fine-grained soils using a gene expression
programming model, Infrastructure 4 (2019) 26, https://doi.org/10.3390/
infrastructures4020026.
[51] R. Kalbasi, M. Jahangiri, A. Mosavi, S. Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri,
S. Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri, S. Ebrahimi, Z. Al-Sadat Etezadi,
A. Karimipour, Finding the best station in Belgium to use residential-scale solar
heating, One-year dynamic simulation with considering all system losses:
economic analysis of using ETSW, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 45
(2021) 101097, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101097.
[52] M. Ghalandari, S. Shamshirband, A. Mosavi, K. Chau, Flutter speed estimation
using presented differential quadrature method formulation, Eng. Appl. Comput.
Fluid Mech. 13 (2019) 804–810, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19942060.2019.1627676.
17
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
[53] M. Rezakazemi, A. Mosavi, S. Shirazian, ANFIS pattern for molecular membranes
separation optimization, J. Mol. Liq. 274 (2019) 470–476, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.molliq.2018.11.017.
[54] J. Tavoosi, A. Mohammadzadeh, B. Pahlevanzadeh, M.B. Kasmani, S.S. Band,
R. Safdar, A.H. Mosavi, A machine learning approach for active/reactive power
control of grid-connected doubly-fed induction generators, Ain Shams Eng. J. 13
(2022) 101564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.08.007.
[55] M. Torabi, S. Hashemi, M.R. Saybani, S. Shamshirband, A. Mosavi, A Hybrid
clustering and classification technique for forecasting short-term energy
consumption, Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 38 (2019) 66–76, https://doi.org/
10.1002/ep.12934.
[56] A. Mosavi, M. Shokri, Z. Mansor, S.N. Qasem, S.S. Band, A. Mohammadzadeh,
Machine learning for modeling the singular multi-pantograph equations, Entropy
22 (2020) 1041, https://doi.org/10.3390/e22091041.
[57] F. Farooq, M. Nasir Amin, K. Khan, M. Rehan Sadiq, M.F. Faisal Javed, F. Aslam,
R. Alyousef, A comparative study of random forest and genetic engineering
programming for the prediction of compressive strength of high strength concrete
(HSC), Appl. Sci. 10 (2020) 7330, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207330.
[58] T.H. Keshavarz Z, Application of ANN and ANFIS models in determining
compressive strength of concrete, J. Soft Comput. Civ. Eng. (2018), https://doi.
org/10.22115/SCCE.2018.51114.
[59] P.Y. Saleh, D.K.I. Jaf, A.A. Abdalla, H.U. Ahmed, R.H. Faraj, W. Mahmood, A.
S. Mohammed, Prediction of the compressive strength of strain-hardening
cement-based composites using soft computing models, Struct. Concr. 24 (2023)
6761–6777, https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200769.
[60] W. Mahmood, A.S. Mohammed, P.G. Asteris, H. Ahmed, Soft computing technics
to predict the early-age compressive strength of flowable ordinary Portland
cement, Soft Comput. 27 (2023) 3133–3150, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-
022-07505-x.
[61] J.-S. Chou, C.-K. Chiu, M. Farfoura, I. Al-Taharwa, Optimizing the prediction
accuracy of concrete compressive strength based on a comparison of data-mining
techniques, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 25 (2011) 242–253, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000088.
[62] A. Behnood, V. Behnood, M. Modiri Gharehveran, K.E. Alyamac, Prediction of the
compressive strength of normal and high-performance concretes using M5P
model tree algorithm, Construct. Build. Mater. 142 (2017) 199–207, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.061.
[63] N.S. Piro, A. Salih, S.M. Hamad, R. Kurda, Comprehensive multiscale techniques
to estimate the compressive strength of concrete incorporated with carbon
nanotubes at various curing times and mix proportions, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 15
(2021) 6506–6527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.11.028.
[64] S. Nazar, J. Yang, M.N. Amin, K. Khan, M.F. Javed, F. Althoey, Formulation of
estimation models for the compressive strength of concrete mixed with nanosilica
and carbon nanotubes, Dev. Built Environ. 13 (2023) 100113, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100113.
[65] Y. Murad, Compressive strength prediction for concrete modified with
nanomaterials, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (2021) e00660, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00660.
[66] Y. Li, H. Li, C. Jin, J. Shen, The study of effect of carbon nanotubes on the
compressive strength of cement-based materials based on machine learning,
Construct. Build. Mater. 358 (2022) 129435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2022.129435.
[67] A. Mohammed, S. Rafiq, W. Mahmood, H. Al-Darkazalir, R. Noaman, W. Qadir,
K. Ghafor, Artificial Neural Network and NLR techniques to predict the
rheological properties and compression strength of cement past modified with
nanoclay, Ain Shams Eng. J. 12 (2021) 1313–1328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2020.07.033.
[68] A. Salih, S. Rafiq, W. Mahmood, H. AL-Darkazali, R. Noaman, K. Ghafor,
W. Qadir, Systemic multi-scale approaches to predict the flowability at various
temperature and mechanical properties of cement paste modified with nano-
calcium carbonate, Construct. Build. Mater. 262 (2020) 120777, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120777.
[69] N.S. Piro, A.S. Mohammed, S.M. Hamad, Multiple analytical models to evaluate
the impact of carbon nanotubes on the electrical resistivity and compressive
strength of the cement paste, Sustainability 13 (2021) 12544, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su132212544.
[70] C.Y. Rahimzadeh, A. Salih, A.A. Barzinjy, Systematic multiscale models to predict
the compressive strength of cement paste as a function of microsilica and
nanosilica contents, water/cement ratio, and curing ages, Sustainability 14
(2022) 1723, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031723.
[71] A. Mohammed, S. Rafiq, K. Ghafor, W. Emad, R. Noaman, A.Y. Qasim, W. Qadir,
Clay nanosize effects on the rheological behavior at various elevated
temperatures and mechanical properties of the cement paste: experimental and
modeling, Iran, J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 46 (2022) 819–842, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40996-021-00604-z.
[72] S. Nazar, J. Yang, W. Ahmad, M.F. Javed, H. Alabduljabbar, A.F. Deifalla,
Development of the new prediction models for the compressive strength of
nanomodified concrete using novel machine learning techniques, Buildings 12
(2022) 2160, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122160.
[73] M. Arifuzzaman, H.J. Qureshi, A.F. Al Fuhaid, F. Alanazi, M.F. Javed, S.M. Eldin,
Novel ensemble modelling for prediction of fundamental properties of bitumen
incorporating plastic waste, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 24 (2023) 3334–3351,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.03.218.
[74] A. Alaskar, G. Alfalah, F. Althoey, M.A. Abuhussain, M.F. Javed, A.F. Deifalla, N.
A. Ghamry, Comparative study of genetic programming-based algorithms for
predicting the compressive strength of concrete at elevated temperature, Case
M. Khan et al.
Stud. Constr. Mater. 18 (2023) e02199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.
e02199.
[75] H. Alabduljabbar, M.N. Amin, S.M. Eldin, M.F. Javed, R. Alyousef, A.
M. Mohamed, Forecasting compressive strength and electrical resistivity of
graphite based nano-composites using novel artificial intelligence techniques,
Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 18 (2023) e01848, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscm.2023.e01848.
[76] S. Shah, M. Houda, S. Khan, F. Althoey, M. Abuhussain, M.A. Abuhussain, M. Ali,
A. Alaskar, M.F. Javed, Mechanical behaviour of E-waste aggregate concrete
using a novel machine learning algorithm: multi expression programming (MEP),
J. Mater. Res. Technol. 25 (2023) 5720–5740, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmrt.2023.07.041.
[77] F. Aslam, R. Alyousef, H. Hassan Awan, M. Faisal Javed, Forecasting the self-
healing capacity of engineered cementitious composites using bagging regressor
and stacking regressor, Structures 54 (2023) 1717–1728, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.istruc.2023.05.140.
[78] S.R. Vadyala, S.N. Betgeri, J.C. Matthews, E. Matthews, A review of physics-based
machine learning in civil engineering, Results Eng 13 (2022) 100316, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100316.
[79] F. Harrou, A. Dairi, A. Dorbane, Y. Sun, Energy consumption prediction in water
treatment plants using deep learning with data augmentation, Results Eng 20
(2023) 101428, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101428.
[80] H. Alabduljabbar, M. Khan, H.H. Awan, S.M. Eldin, R. Alyousef, A.M. Mohamed,
Predicting ultra-high-performance concrete compressive strength using gene
expression programming method, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 18 (2023) e02074,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02074.
[81] A. Khan, M. Khan, M. Ali, M. Khan, A.U. Khan, M. Shakeel, M. Fawad, T. Najeh,
Y. Gamil, Predictive modeling for depth of wear of concrete modified with fly ash:
a comparative analysis of genetic programming-based algorithms, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. (2023) e02744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02744.
[82] L. Chen, Z. Wang, A.A. Khan, M. Khan, M.F. Javed, A. Alaskar, S.M. Eldin,
Development of predictive models for sustainable concrete via genetic
programming-based algorithms, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 24 (2023) 6391–6410,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.04.180.
[83] S.I. Malami, F.H. Anwar, S. Abdulrahman, S.I. Haruna, S.I.A. Ali, S.I. Abba,
Implementation of hybrid neuro-fuzzy and self-turning predictive model for the
prediction of concrete carbonation depth: a soft computing technique, Results
Eng 10 (2021) 100228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100228.
[84] D. Chakraborty, I. Awolusi, L. Gutierrez, An explainable machine learning model
to predict and elucidate the compressive behavior of high-performance concrete,
Results Eng 11 (2021) 100245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100245.
[85] F. Alsharari, B. Iftikhar, M.A. Uddin, A.F. Deifalla, Data-driven strategy for
evaluating the response of eco-friendly concrete at elevated temperatures for fire
resistance construction, Results Eng (2023) 101595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rineng.2023.101595.
[86] D.A. Malkawi, S.R. Rabab’ah, A.A. Sharo, H. Aldeeky, G.K. Al-Souliman, H.
O. Saleh, Enhancing of uniaxial compressive strength of travertine rock prediction
through machine learning and multivariate analysis, Results Eng (2023) 101593,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101593.
[87] M.A. Abid Almubaidin, S.D. Latif, K. Balan, A.N. Ahmed, A. El-Shafie, Enhancing
sediment transport predictions through machine learning-based multi-scenario
regression models, Results Eng (2023) 101585, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rineng.2023.101585.
[88] M. Khan, R.-D. Nassar, A.U. Khan, M. Houda, C. El Hachem, M. Rasheed,
W. Anwar, Optimizing durability assessment: machine learning models for depth
of wear of environmentally-friendly concrete, Results Eng (2023) 101625,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101625.
[89] M. Alyami, M. Khan, M. Fawad, R. Nawaz, A.W. Hammad, T. Najeh, Y. Gamil,
Predictive modeling for compressive strength of 3D printed fiber-reinforced
concrete using machine learning algorithms, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. (2023)
e02728, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02728.
[90] M. Khan, M.F. Javed, Towards sustainable construction: machine learning based
predictive models for strength and durability characteristics of blended cement
concrete, Mater. Today Commun. 37 (2023) 107428, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mtcomm.2023.107428.
[91] J. Liu, J. Fu, Y. Yang, C. Gu, Study on dispersion, mechanical and microstructure
properties of cement paste incorporating graphene sheets, Construct. Build.
Mater. 199 (2019) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.006.
[92] Y. Zhao, Y. Liu, T. Shi, Y. Gu, B. Zheng, K. Zhang, J. Xu, Y. Fu, S. Shi, Study of
mechanical properties and early-stage deformation properties of graphene-
modified cement-based materials, Construct. Build. Mater. 257 (2020) 119498,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119498.
[93] H. Xu, J. Zhou, P.G. Asteris, D. Jahed Armaghani, M.M. Tahir, Supervised
machine learning techniques to the prediction of tunnel boring machine
penetration rate, Appl. Sci. 9 (2019) 3715, https://doi.org/10.3390/
app9183715.
[94] H.H. Awan, A. Hussain, M.F. Javed, Y. Qiu, R. Alrowais, A.M. Mohamed, D. Fathi,
A.M. Alzahrani, Predicting marshall flow and marshall stability of asphalt
pavements using multi expression programming, Buildings 12 (2022) 314,
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030314.
[95] A. Aldrees, H.H. Awan, M.F. Javed, A.M. Mohamed, Prediction of water quality
indexes with ensemble learners: bagging and boosting, Process Saf. Environ.
Protect. 168 (2022) 344–361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.10.005.
[96] U. Reuter, A. Sultan, D.S. Reischl, A comparative study of machine learning
approaches for modeling concrete failure surfaces, Adv. Eng. Software 116 (2018)
67–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.11.006.
18
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
[97] Y. Khan, A. Zafar, M.F. Rehman, M.F. Javed, B. Iftikhar, Y. Gamil, Bio-inspired
based meta-heuristic approach for predicting the strength of fiber-reinforced
based strain hardening cementitious composites, Heliyon 9 (2023) e21601,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21601.
[98] F. Amin, M.F. Javed, I. Ahmad, O. Asad, N. Khan, A.B. Khan, S. Ali, S. Abdullaev,
F.A. Awwad, E.A.A. Ismail, Utilization of discarded face masks in combination
with recycled concrete aggregate and silica fume for sustainable civil construction
projects, Sci. Rep. 14 (2024) 449, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50946-z.
[99] R. Asghar, M.F. Javed, M. Saqib, A. Alaskar, M. Ali, R. Nawaz, Multi-expression
programming based prediction of the seismic capacity of reinforced concrete
rectangular columns, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 131 (2024) 107834, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107834.
[100] J. Lin, Y. Liu, H. Sui, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, W. Duan, Microstructure of graphene
oxide–silica-reinforced OPC composites: image-based characterization and nano-
identification through deep learning, Cement Concr. Res. 154 (2022) 106737,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106737.
[101] W. Dong, Y. Huang, B. Lehane, G. Ma, Multi-objective design optimization for
graphite-based nanomaterials reinforced cementitious composites: a data-driven
method with machine learning and NSGA-II, Construct. Build. Mater. 331 (2022)
127198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127198.
[102] J. Sun, Y. Ma, J. Li, J. Zhang, Z. Ren, X. Wang, Machine learning-aided design and
prediction of cementitious composites containing graphite and slag powder,
J. Build. Eng. 43 (2021) 102544, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102544.
[103] B. Fu, D.-C. Feng, A machine learning-based time-dependent shear strength model
for corroded reinforced concrete beams, J. Build. Eng. 36 (2021) 102118, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102118.
[104] D.-C. Feng, B. Cetiner, M.R. Azadi Kakavand, E. Taciroglu, Data-Driven approach
to predict the plastic hinge length of reinforced concrete columns and its
application, J. Struct. Eng. 147 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0002852.
[105] D.-C. Feng, Z.-T. Liu, X.-D. Wang, Y. Chen, J.-Q. Chang, D.-F. Wei, Z.-M. Jiang,
Machine learning-based compressive strength prediction for concrete: an adaptive
boosting approach, Construct. Build. Mater. 230 (2020) 117000, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117000.
[106] D.-C. Feng, Z.-T. Liu, X.-D. Wang, Z.-M. Jiang, S.-X. Liang, Failure mode
classification and bearing capacity prediction for reinforced concrete columns
based on ensemble machine learning algorithm, Adv. Eng. Inf. 45 (2020) 101126,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101126.
[107] D.-C. Feng, W.-J. Wang, S. Mangalathu, G. Hu, T. Wu, Implementing ensemble
learning methods to predict the shear strength of RC deep beams with/without
web reinforcements, Eng. Struct. 235 (2021) 111979, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2021.111979.
[108] Z. Ahmad, H. Zhong, A. Mosavi, M. Sadiq, H. Saleem, A. Khalid, S. Mahmood,
N. Nabipour, Machine learning modeling of aerobic biodegradation for azo dyes
and hexavalent chromium, Mathematics 8 (2020) 913, https://doi.org/10.3390/
math8060913.
[109] A. A, P. M, S. Bourouis, S.S. Band, A. Mosavi, S. Agrawal, M. Hamdi, Meta-
Heuristic algorithm-tuned neural network for breast cancer diagnosis using
ultrasound images, Front. Oncol. 12 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/
fonc.2022.834028.
[110] G. Zhang, S.S. Band, C. Jun, S.M. Bateni, H.-M. Chuang, H. Turabieh, M. Mafarja,
A. Mosavi, M. Moslehpour, Solar radiation estimation in different climates with
meteorological variables using Bayesian model averaging and new soft computing
models, Energy Rep. 7 (2021) 8973–8996, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2021.10.117.
[111] A.H. Elsheikh, E.M.S. El-Said, M. Abd Elaziz, M. Fujii, H.R. El-Tahan, Water
distillation tower: experimental investigation, economic assessment, and
performance prediction using optimized machine-learning model, J. Clean. Prod.
388 (2023) 135896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135896.
[112] A.B. Khoshaim, E.B. Moustafa, O.T. Bafakeeh, A.H. Elsheikh, An optimized
multilayer perceptrons model using grey wolf optimizer to predict mechanical
and microstructural properties of friction stir processed aluminum alloy
reinforced by nanoparticles, Coatings 11 (2021) 1476, https://doi.org/10.3390/
coatings11121476.
[113] A. Elsheikh, Bistable morphing composites for energy-harvesting applications,
Polymers 14 (2022) 1893, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091893.
[114] A.H. Elsheikh, A.I. Saba, H. Panchal, S. Shanmugan, N.A. Alsaleh, M. Ahmadein,
Artificial intelligence for forecasting the prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic: an
overview, Healthcare 9 (2021) 1614, https://doi.org/10.3390/
healthcare9121614.
[115] W.S. AbuShanab, M. Abd Elaziz, E.I. Ghandourah, E.B. Moustafa, A.H. Elsheikh,
A new fine-tuned random vector functional link model using Hunger games
search optimizer for modeling friction stir welding process of polymeric
materials, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 14 (2021) 1482–1493, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.07.031.
[116] S.S. Band, S. Ardabili, M. Sookhak, A.T. Chronopoulos, S. Elnaffar,
M. Moslehpour, M. Csaba, B. Torok, H.-T. Pai, A. Mosavi, When smart cities get
smarter via machine learning: an in-depth literature review, IEEE Access 10
(2022) 60985–61015, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3181718.
[117] Z. Liu, A. Mohammadzadeh, H. Turabieh, M. Mafarja, S.S. Band, A. Mosavi, A new
online learned interval type-3 fuzzy control system for solar energy management
systems, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 10498–10508, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2021.3049301.
[118] J. Tavoosi, A.A. Suratgar, M.B. Menhaj, A. Mosavi, A. Mohammadzadeh,
E. Ranjbar, Modeling renewable energy systems by a self-evolving nonlinear
M. Khan et al.
consequent Part Recurrent type-2 fuzzy system for power prediction,
Sustainability 13 (2021) 3301, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063301.
[119] R.E. Bavili, A. Mohammadzadeh, J. Tavoosi, S. Mobayen, W. Assawinchaichote, J.
H. Asad, A.H. Mosavi, A new active fault tolerant control system: predictive
online fault estimation, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 118461–118471, https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3107282.
[120] Y. Cao, A. Raise, A. Mohammadzadeh, S. Rathinasamy, S.S. Band, A. Mosavi,
Deep learned recurrent type-3 fuzzy system: application for renewable energy
modeling/prediction, Energy Rep. 7 (2021) 8115–8127, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.004.
[121] H. Moayedi, A. Mosavi, A water cycle-based error minimization technique in
predicting the bearing capacity of shallow foundation, Eng. Comput. 38 (2022)
3993–4006, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01289-8.
[122] M. Ehteram, F. Panahi, A.N. Ahmed, A.H. Mosavi, A. El-Shafie, Inclusive multiple
model using hybrid artificial neural networks for predicting evaporation, Front.
Environ. Sci. 9 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.789995.
[123] M. Dehghan Manshadi, M. Ghassemi, S.M. Mousavi, A.H. Mosavi, L. Kovacs,
Predicting the parameters of vortex bladeless wind turbine using deep learning
method of long short-term memory, Energies 14 (2021) 4867, https://doi.org/
10.3390/en14164867.
[124] S.S. Band, S. Ardabili, A. Mosavi, C. Jun, H. Khoshkam, M. Moslehpour,
Feasibility of soft computing techniques for estimating the long-term mean
monthly wind speed, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 638–648, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2021.11.247.
[125] H. Iranmehr, R. Aazami, J. Tavoosi, M. Shirkhani, A.-R. Azizi,
A. Mohammadzadeh, A.H. Mosavi, W. Guo, Modeling the price of emergency
power transmission lines in the reserve market due to the influence of renewable
energies, Front. Energy Res. 9 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/
fenrg.2021.792418.
[126] H.D. Nejad, M. Nazari, M. Nazari, M.M.S. Mardan, A. Mohammadzadeh, M.T. Vu,
A. Mosavi, Fuzzy state-dependent riccati equation (FSDRE) control of the reverse
osmosis desalination system with photovoltaic power supply, IEEE Access 10
(2022) 95585–95603, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3204270.
[127] R. Aazami, O. Heydari, J. Tavoosi, M. Shirkhani, A. Mohammadzadeh, A. Mosavi,
Optimal control of an energy-storage system in a microgrid for reducing wind-
power fluctuations, Sustainability 14 (2022) 6183, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14106183.
[128] H. Wang, K.A. Alattas, A. Mohammadzadeh, M.H. Sabzalian, A.A. Aly, A. Mosavi,
Comprehensive review of load forecasting with emphasis on intelligent
computing approaches, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 13189–13198, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.016.
[129] A. Mosavi, F.S. Hosseini, B. Choubin, M. Goodarzi, A.A. Dineva, Groundwater
salinity susceptibility mapping using classifier ensemble and bayesian machine
learning models, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 145564–145576, https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014908.
[130] A. Mosavi, A. Shirzadi, B. Choubin, F. Taromideh, F.S. Hosseini, M. Borji,
H. Shahabi, A. Salvati, A.A. Dineva, Towards an ensemble machine learning
model of random subspace based functional tree classifier for snow avalanche
susceptibility mapping, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 145968–145983, https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014816.
[131] H.I. Erdal, O. Karakurt, E. Namli, High performance concrete compressive
strength forecasting using ensemble models based on discrete wavelet transform,
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26 (2013) 1246–1254, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engappai.2012.10.014.
[132] H. Imran, M. Ibrahim, S. Al-Shoukry, F. Rustam, I. Ashraf, Latest concrete
materials dataset and ensemble prediction model for concrete compressive
strength containing RCA and GGBFS materials, Construct. Build. Mater. 325
(2022) 126525, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126525.
[133] F. Farooq, W. Ahmed, A. Akbar, F. Aslam, R. Alyousef, Predictive modeling for
sustainable high-performance concrete from industrial wastes: a comparison and
optimization of models using ensemble learners, J. Clean. Prod. 292 (2021)
126032, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126032.
[134] A. Sharafati, S.B. Haji Seyed Asadollah, N. Al-Ansari, Application of bagging
ensemble model for predicting compressive strength of hollow concrete masonry
prism, Ain Shams Eng. J. 12 (2021) 3521–3530, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asej.2021.03.028.
[135] A. Ahmad, F. Farooq, P. Niewiadomski, K. Ostrowski, A. Akbar, F. Aslam,
R. Alyousef, Prediction of compressive strength of fly ash based concrete using
individual and ensemble algorithm, Materials 14 (2021) 794, https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma14040794.
[136] M. Khan, A. Khan, A.U. Khan, M. Shakeel, K. Khan, H. Alabduljabbar, T. Najeh,
Y. Gamil, Intelligent prediction modeling for flexural capacity of FRP-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams using machine learning algorithms,
Heliyon (2023) e23375, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23375.
[137] R. Alyousef, R.-U.-D. Nassar, M. Khan, K. Arif, M. Fawad, A.M. Hassan, N.
A. Ghamry, Forecasting the strength characteristics of concrete incorporating
waste foundry sand using advance machine algorithms including deep learning,
Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 19 (2023) e02459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscm.2023.e02459.
[138] R. Alyousef, M.F. Rehman, M. Khan, M. Fawad, A.U. Khan, A.M. Hassan, N.
A. Ghamry, Machine learning-driven predictive models for compressive strength
of steel fiber reinforced concrete subjected to high temperatures, Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 19 (2023) e02418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02418.
[139] H. Sun, L. Ling, Z. Ren, S.A. Memon, F. Xing, Effect of graphene oxide/graphene
hybrid on mechanical properties of cement mortar and mechanism investigation,
Nanomaterials 10 (2020) 113, https://doi.org/10.3390/nano10010113.
19
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
[140] H. Yang, M. Monasterio, H. Cui, N. Han, Experimental study of the effects of
graphene oxide on microstructure and properties of cement paste composite,
Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 102 (2017) 263–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesa.2017.07.022.
[141] S. Lv, Y. Ma, C. Qiu, T. Sun, J. Liu, Q. Zhou, Effect of graphene oxide nanosheets
of microstructure and mechanical properties of cement composites, Construct.
Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 121–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2013.08.022.
[142] Z.S. Metaxa, Exfoliated graphene nanoplatelet cement-based nanocomposites as
piezoresistive sensors: influence of nanoreinforcement lateral size on monitoring
capability, Ciência Tecnol. Dos Mater. 28 (2016) 73–79, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ctmat.2015.12.001.
[143] Q. Liu, Q. Xu, Q. Yu, R. Gao, T. Tong, Experimental investigation on mechanical
and piezoresistive properties of cementitious materials containing graphene and
graphene oxide nanoplatelets, Construct. Build. Mater. 127 (2016) 565–576,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.024.
[144] Z. Jiang, O.E. Ozbulut, D.K. Harris, Graphene nanoplatelets-based self-sensing
cementitious composites, in: Multifunct. Mater. Mech. Behav. Act. Mater. Integr.
Syst. Des. Implementation; Struct. Heal. Monit., vol. 1, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1115/SMASIS2016-9188.
[145] M. Cao, H. Zhang, C. Zhang, Effect of graphene on mechanical properties of
cement mortars, J. Cent. South Univ. 23 (2016) 919–925, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11771-016-3139-4.
[146] Y. Wang, J. Yang, D. Ouyang, Effect of graphene oxide on mechanical properties
of cement mortar and its strengthening mechanism, Materials 12 (2019) 3753,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12223753.
[147] S. Sun, B. Han, S. Jiang, X. Yu, Y. Wang, H. Li, J. Ou, Nano graphite platelets-
enabled piezoresistive cementitious composites for structural health monitoring,
Construct. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 314–328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.01.006.
[148] S. Lv, J. Liu, T. Sun, Y. Ma, Q. Zhou, Effect of GO nanosheets on shapes of cement
hydration crystals and their formation process, Construct. Build. Mater. 64 (2014)
231–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.061.
[149] H. Peng, Y. Ge, C.S. Cai, Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, Mechanical properties and
microstructure of graphene oxide cement-based composites, Construct. Build.
Mater. 194 (2019) 102–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.10.234.
[150] S. Bai, L. Jiang, Y. Jiang, M. Jin, S. Jiang, D. Tao, Research on electrical
conductivity of graphene/cement composites, Adv. Cement Res. 32 (2020) 45–52,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jadcr.16.00170.
[151] B. Wang, B. Pang, Mechanical property and toughening mechanism of water
reducing agents modified graphene nanoplatelets reinforced cement composites,
Construct. Build. Mater. 226 (2019) 699–711, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.07.229.
[152] S. Sharma, N.C. Kothiyal, Comparative effects of pristine and ball-milled
graphene oxide on physico-chemical characteristics of cement mortar
nanocomposites, Construct. Build. Mater. 115 (2016) 256–268, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.019.
[153] B. Wang, R. Jiang, Z. Wu, Investigation of the mechanical properties and
microstructure of graphene nanoplatelet-cement composite, Nanomaterials 6
(2016) 200, https://doi.org/10.3390/nano6110200.
[154] S. Zhai, B. Pang, G. Liu, Y. Zhang, K. Xu, W. She, Y. Zhang, Investigation on
preparation and multifunctionality of reduced graphene oxide cement mortar,
Construct. Build. Mater. 275 (2021) 122119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.122119.
[155] I. Papanikolaou, N. Arena, A. Al-Tabbaa, Graphene nanoplatelet reinforced
concrete for self-sensing structures – a lifecycle assessment perspective, J. Clean.
Prod. 240 (2019) 118202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118202.
[156] S. Ghazizadeh, P. Duffour, N.T. Skipper, Y. Bai, Understanding the behaviour of
graphene oxide in Portland cement paste, Cement Concr. Res. 111 (2018)
169–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.05.016.
[157] Q. Wang, J. Wang, C. Lu, B. Liu, K. Zhang, C. Li, Influence of graphene oxide
additions on the microstructure and mechanical strength of cement, N. Carbon
Mater. 30 (2015) 349–356, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-5805(15)60194-9.
[158] J. Liu, Q. Li, S. Xu, Reinforcing mechanism of graphene and graphene oxide sheets
on cement-based materials, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002649.
[159] B. Wang, D. Shuang, Effect of graphene nanoplatelets on the properties, pore
structure and microstructure of cement composites, Mater. Express. 8 (2018)
407–416, https://doi.org/10.1166/mex.2018.1447.
[160] T.S. Qureshi, D.K. Panesar, Nano reinforced cement paste composite with
functionalized graphene and pristine graphene nanoplatelets, Composites, Part B
197 (2020) 108063, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108063.
[161] P.T. Dalla, I.K. Tragazikis, G. Trakakis, C. Galiotis, K.G. Dassios, T.E. Matikas,
Multifunctional cement mortars enhanced with graphene nanoplatelets and
carbon nanotubes, Sensors 21 (2021) 933, https://doi.org/10.3390/s21030933.
[162] H. Du, S.D. Pang, Enhancement of barrier properties of cement mortar with
graphene nanoplatelet, Cement Concr. Res. 76 (2015) 10–19, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.007.
[163] S. Lv, S. Ting, J. Liu, Q. Zhou, Use of graphene oxide nanosheets to regulate the
microstructure of hardened cement paste to increase its strength and toughness,
CrystEngComm 16 (2014) 8508, https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CE00684D.
[164] K. Gong, Z. Pan, A.H. Korayem, L. Qiu, D. Li, F. Collins, C.M. Wang, W.H. Duan,
Reinforcing effects of graphene oxide on Portland cement paste, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 27 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001125.
M. Khan et al.
[165] W. Baomin, D. Shuang, Effect and mechanism of graphene nanoplatelets on
hydration reaction, mechanical properties and microstructure of cement
composites, Construct. Build. Mater. 228 (2019) 116720, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116720.
[166] N. Zhang, W. She, F. Du, K. Xu, Experimental study on mechanical and functional
properties of reduced graphene oxide/cement composites, Materials 13 (2020)
3015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13133015.
[167] T. Tong, Z. Fan, Q. Liu, S. Wang, S. Tan, Q. Yu, Investigation of the effects of
graphene and graphene oxide nanoplatelets on the micro- and macro-properties
of cementitious materials, Construct. Build. Mater. 106 (2016) 102–114, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.092.
[168] F. Farooq, A. Akbar, R.A. Khushnood, W.L.B. Muhammad, S.K.U. Rehman, M.
F. Javed, Experimental investigation of hybrid carbon nanotubes and graphite
nanoplatelets on rheology, shrinkage, mechanical, and microstructure of SCCM,
Materials 13 (2020) 230, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13010230.
[169] W. Dong, Y. Huang, B. Lehane, G. Ma, XGBoost algorithm-based prediction of
concrete electrical resistivity for structural health monitoring, Autom. ConStruct.
114 (2020) 103155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103155.
[170] ASTM C39/C39M-14, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM Int, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[171] M.N. Amin, A. Ahmad, K. Khan, W. Ahmad, S. Nazar, M.I. Faraz, A.A. Alabdullah,
Split tensile strength prediction of recycled aggregate-based sustainable concrete
using artificial intelligence methods, Materials 15 (2022) 4296, https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma15124296.
[172] G. Chen, W. Tang, S. Chen, S. Wang, H. Cui, Prediction of self-healing of
engineered cementitious composite using machine learning approaches, Appl. Sci.
12 (2022) 3605, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073605.
[173] H. Naderpour, A.H. Rafiean, P. Fakharian, Compressive strength prediction of
environmentally friendly concrete using artificial neural networks, J. Build. Eng.
16 (2018) 213–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.01.007.
[174] H. Chauhan, Y. Jang, S. Pradhan, H. Moon, Personalized optimal room
temperature and illuminance for maximizing occupant’s mental task performance
using physiological data, J. Build. Eng. 78 (2023) 107757, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107757.
[175] Y. Jang, I. Jeong, M. Younesi Heravi, S. Sarkar, H. Shin, Y. Ahn, Multi-camera-
based human activity recognition for human–robot collaboration in construction,
Sensors 23 (2023) 6997, https://doi.org/10.3390/s23156997.
[176] M.N. Amin, M.F. Javed, K. Khan, F.I. Shalabi, M.G. Qadir, Modeling compressive
strength of eco-friendly volcanic ash mortar using artificial neural networking,
Symmetry (Basel) 13 (2021) 2009, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13112009.
[177] M. Alyami, M. Khan, M.F. Javed, M. Ali, H. Alabduljabbar, T. Najeh, Y. Gamil,
Application of metaheuristic optimization algorithms in predicting the
compressive strength of 3D-printed fiber-reinforced concrete, Dev. Built Environ.
(2023) 100307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100307.
[178] A. Aldrees, M. Khan, A.T.B. Taha, M. Ali, Evaluation of water quality indexes with
novel machine learning and SHapley Additive ExPlanation (SHAP) approaches,
J. Water Process Eng. 58 (2024) 104789, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jwpe.2024.104789.
[179] M. Alyami, R.-U.-D. Nassar, M. Khan, A.W. Hammad, H. Alabduljabbar, R. Nawaz,
M. Fawad, Y. Gamil, Estimating compressive strength of concrete containing rice
husk ash using interpretable machine learning-based models, Case Stud. Constr.
Mater. (2024) e02901, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e02901.
[180] H. Alabduljabbar, M. Khan, H.H. Awan, S.M. Eldin, R. Alyousef, A.M. Mohamed,
Predicting ultra-high-performance concrete compressive strength using gene
expression programming method, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. (2023) e02074,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02074.
[181] M. Younesi Heravi, Y. Jang, I. Jeong, S. Sarkar, Deep learning-based activity-
aware 3D human motion trajectory prediction in construction, Expert Syst. Appl.
239 (2024) 122423, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122423.
[182] M. Younesi Heravi, A. Yeganeh, S.B. Razavian, Using Fuzzy Approach in
Determining Critical Parameters for Optimum Safety Functions in Mega Projects
(Case Study: Iran’s Construction Industry), 2022, pp. 183–200, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-16-3128-3_10.
[183] L. Chen, Z. Wang, A.A. Khan, M. Khan, M.F. Javed, A. Alaskar, S.M. Eldin,
Development of predictive models for sustainable concrete via genetic
programming-based algorithms, J. Mater. Res. Technol. (2023), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.04.180.
[184] J.-S. Chou, C.-F. Tsai, A.-D. Pham, Y.-H. Lu, Machine learning in concrete strength
simulations: multi-nation data analytics, Construct. Build. Mater. 73 (2014)
771–780, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.054.
[185] F. Khademi, S.M. Jamal, N. Deshpande, S. Londhe, Predicting strength of recycled
aggregate concrete using artificial neural network, adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference system and multiple linear regression, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 5
(2016) 355–369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.09.003.
[186] W.W.J. Neter, M.H. Kutner, C.J. Nachtsheim, Applied Linear Statistical Models,
1996.
20
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101837
[187] L. Yang, S. Liu, S. Tsoka, L.G. Papageorgiou, A regression tree approach using
mathematical programming, Expert Syst. Appl. 78 (2017) 347–357, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.013.
[188] T. Nguyen, A. Kashani, T. Ngo, S. Bordas, Deep neural network with high-order
neuron for the prediction of foamed concrete strength, Comput. Civ. Infrastruct.
Eng. 34 (2019) 316–332, https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12422.
[189] A.H. Gandomi, A.H. Alavi, M.R. Mirzahosseini, F.M. Nejad, Nonlinear genetic-
based models for prediction of flow number of asphalt mixtures, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 23 (2011) 248–263, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0000154.
[190] A.H. Gandomi, D.A. Roke, Assessment of artificial neural network and genetic
programming as predictive tools, Adv. Eng. Software 88 (2015) 63–72, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.05.007.
[191] H.I. Erdal, Two-level and hybrid ensembles of decision trees for high performance
concrete compressive strength prediction, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26 (2013)
1689–1697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2013.03.014.
[192] M.N. Amin, M. Iqbal, K. Khan, M.G. Qadir, F.I. Shalabi, A. Jamal, Ensemble tree-
based approach towards flexural strength prediction of FRP reinforced concrete
beams, Polymers 14 (2022) 1303, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071303.
[193] M.H.D.M. Ribeiro, L. dos Santos Coelho, Ensemble approach based on bagging,
boosting and stacking for short-term prediction in agribusiness time series, Appl.
Soft Comput. 86 (2020) 105837, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105837.
[194] Yoav Freund, Robert E. Schapire, A Short Introduction to Boosting, Shannon Lab.,
1999.
[195] M. Nasir Amin, B. Iftikhar, K. Khan, M. Faisal Javed, A. Mohammad AbuArab,
M. Faisal Rehman, Prediction model for rice husk ash concrete using AI approach:
boosting and bagging algorithms, Structures 50 (2023) 745–757, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.istruc.2023.02.080.
[196] Y. Hu, A.A. Alaskar, F. Althoey, M.A. Abuhussain, G. Alfalah, F. Farooq, Strength
evaluation sustainable concrete with waste ingredients at elevated temperature
by employing interpretable algorithms: optimization and hyper tuning, Mater.
Today Commun. 36 (2023) 106467, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mtcomm.2023.106467.
[197] N. Dahiya, B. Saini, H.D. Chalak, Gradient boosting-based regression modelling
for estimating the time period of the irregular precast concrete structural system
with cross bracing, J. King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci. (2021), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jksues.2021.08.004.
[198] H. Nguyen, T. Vu, T.P. Vo, H.-T. Thai, Efficient machine learning models for
prediction of concrete strengths, Construct. Build. Mater. 266 (2021) 120950,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120950.
[199] A. Golbraikh, A. Tropsha, Beware of q2, J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20 (2002)
269–276, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-3263(01)00123-1.
[200] P.P. Roy, K. Roy, On some aspects of variable selection for partial least squares
regression models, QSAR Comb. Sci. 27 (2008) 302–313, https://doi.org/
10.1002/qsar.200710043.
[201] A. Gholampour, A.H. Gandomi, T. Ozbakkaloglu, New formulations for
mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete using gene expression
programming, Construct. Build. Mater. 130 (2017) 122–145, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.114.
[202] A.H. Gandomi, A. Faramarzifar, P.G. Rezaee, A. Asghari, S. Talatahari, New
design equations for elastic modulus of concrete using multi expression
programming, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21 (2015) 761–774, https://doi.org/10.3846/
13923730.2014.893910.
[203] A. Montazerian, M.H. Baghban, R. Ramachandra, S. Goutianos, A machine
learning approach for assessing the compressive strength of cementitious
composites reinforced by graphene derivatives, Construct. Build. Mater. 409
(2023) 134014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.134014.
[204] J. Yang, B. Zeng, Z. Ni, Y. Fan, Z. Hang, Y. Wang, C. Feng, J. Yang, Comparison of
traditional and automated machine learning approaches in predicting the
compressive strength of graphene oxide/cement composites, Construct. Build.
Mater. 394 (2023) 132179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2023.132179.
[205] M.T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, C. Guestrin, Why should I trust you?, in: Proc. 22nd ACM
SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2016,
pp. 1135–1144, https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778.
[206] S.M. Lundberg, A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions, 1st Conf,
Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NIPS) (2017).
[207] A.S. Bakouregui, H.M. Mohamed, A. Yahia, B. Benmokrane, Explainable extreme
gradient boosting tree-based prediction of load-carrying capacity of FRP-RC
columns, Eng. Struct. 245 (2021) 112836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2021.112836.
[208] S. Mangalathu, S.-H. Hwang, J.-S. Jeon, Failure mode and effects analysis of RC
members based on machine-learning-based SHapley Additive exPlanations
(SHAP) approach, Eng. Struct. 219 (2020) 110927, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2020.110927.