Supplementary cementitious materials-based concrete porosity estimation using modeling approaches: A comparative study of GEP and MEP

3Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Using supplementary cementitious materials in concrete production makes it eco-friendly by decreasing cement usage and the corresponding CO2 emissions. One key measure of concrete's durability performance is its porosity. An empirical prediction of the porosity of high-performance concrete with added cementitious elements is the goal of this work, which employs machine learning approaches. Binder, water/cement ratio, slag, aggregate content, superplasticizer (SP), fly ash, and curing conditions were considered as inputs in the database. The aim of this study is to create ML models that could evaluate concrete porosity. Gene expression programming (GEP) and multi-expression programming (MEP) were used to develop these models. Statistical tests, Taylor's diagram, R 2 values, and the difference between experimental and predicted readings were the metrics used to evaluate the models. With R 2 = 0.971, mean absolute error (MAE) = 0.348%, root mean square error (RMSE) = 0.460%, and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) = 0.971, the MEP provided a slightly better-fitted model and improved prediction performance when contrasted with the GEP, which had R 2 = 0.925, MAE = 0.591%, RMSE = 0.745%, and NSE = 0.923. Binder, water/binder ratio, curing conditions, and aggregate content had a direct (positive) relationship with the porosity of concrete, while SP, fly ash, and slag had an indirect (negative) association, according to the SHapley Additive exPlanations study.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tian, Q., Lu, Y., Zhou, J., Song, S., Yang, L., Cheng, T., & Huang, J. (2024). Supplementary cementitious materials-based concrete porosity estimation using modeling approaches: A comparative study of GEP and MEP. Reviews on Advanced Materials Science, 63(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/rams-2023-0189

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free