Research on data driven and intrinsically explainable machine learning enabled compressive strength prediction and intelligent design of smart cementitious composites
Source abstract
Abstract
This study addresses the problems that evolution of compressive strength in smart cementitious composites (SCCs) becomes complex due to the nanofillers and the low efficiency of optimal mix design based on repetitive testing. A data-driven framework for intelligent prediction and explainable analysis is developed. A compressive strength database is built covering four nanofillers: multi walled carbon nanotubes, graphene nanoplatelets, graphene oxide, and nano carbon black. The framework uses an explainable boosting machine (EBM) to learn the nonlinear mapping between eleven input features and compressive strength, enabling accurate prediction of SCC compressive strength and comparison with five mainstream machine learning models. The results show that EBM achieves highest predictive accuracy on the test set. Interpretability analysis identifies water-binder ratio, nano filler-cement ratio, and fine aggregate content as key factors governing the predicted compressive strength. These findings provide theoretical and technical support for rapid, performance-based intelligent mix design of SCCs.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Smart Materials for Construction · Machine Learning in Materials Science
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Intelligent Construction and Operation, Tianjin University
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University
Funding
Young Scientific and Technological Talents in Tianjin
References (68)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/s43017-020-0093-310.1038/s43017-020-0093-3 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.measurement.2014.09.04810.1016/j.measurement.2014.09.048 ↗
3. 10.1063/1.512824210.1063/1.5128242 ↗
4. 10.1038/d41586-022-03650-310.1038/d41586-022-03650-3 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.08110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.081 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.11.00210.1016/j.ymssp.2009.11.002 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.sna.2008.04.00810.1016/j.sna.2008.04.008 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.08610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.086 ↗
9. 10.1007/s10853-020-05099-z10.1007/s10853-020-05099-z ↗
10. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.02610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.026 ↗
11. 10.1007/s40996-022-00890-110.1007/s40996-022-00890-1 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12045210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120452 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.04310.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.043 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e0240510.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02405 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.16910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.169 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.chaos.2023.11320010.1016/j.chaos.2023.113200 ↗
17. 10.1038/s41467-023-44236-510.1038/s41467-023-44236-5 ↗
18. 10.1038/s41598-024-54358-510.1038/s41598-024-54358-5 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13393310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133933 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.10991510.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.109915 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13974610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.139746 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.apmt.2025.10260110.1016/j.apmt.2025.102601 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.14308210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.143082 ↗
24. 10.1038/s41598-023-36303-010.1038/s41598-023-36303-0 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11827110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118271 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.clema.2022.10004410.1016/j.clema.2022.100044 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.rineng.2025.10408710.1016/j.rineng.2025.104087 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.rineng.2025.10863010.1016/j.rineng.2025.108630 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13490510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.134905 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13089810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130898 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.engappai.2025.11211710.1016/j.engappai.2025.112117 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.matdes.2021.11034110.1016/j.matdes.2021.110341 ↗
33. Lundberg SM, Lee SI. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems; 2017 Dec 4-9; California, USA; 2017. p. 4768–4777.
34. 10.1145/2939672.293977810.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
35. 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x ↗
36. Nori H Jenkins S Koch P et al. Interpretml: a unified framework for machine learning interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09223 2019.
37. 10.1007/s11682-022-00688-910.1007/s11682-022-00688-9 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.frl.2023.10430510.1016/j.frl.2023.104305 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e0184510.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01845 ↗
40. 10.1145/2783258.278861310.1145/2783258.2788613 ↗
41. 10.1007/s10479-025-06570-310.1007/s10479-025-06570-3 ↗
42. 10.3389/fmed.2022.96029610.3389/fmed.2022.960296 ↗
43. 10.1214/aos/101320345110.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
44. 10.3389/fnbot.2013.0002110.3389/fnbot.2013.00021 ↗
45. 10.1006/jcss.1997.150410.1006/jcss.1997.1504 ↗
46. 10.1145/2939672.293978510.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
47. 10.1023/A:101093340432410.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
48. 10.1109/ICDAR.1995.59899410.1109/ICDAR.1995.598994 ↗
49. 10.1007/s10462-011-9272-410.1007/s10462-011-9272-4 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.inffus.2015.06.00510.1016/j.inffus.2015.06.005 ↗
51. 10.1002/widm.148410.1002/widm.1484 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.06110.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.061 ↗
53. 10.1109/JPROC.2015.249421810.1109/JPROC.2015.2494218 ↗
54. 10.5555/2986459.298674310.5555/2986459.2986743 ↗
55. Bergstra J, Yamins D, Cox DD. Making a science of model search: hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning; 2013 Jun 16–21; Atlanta, USA: JMLR.org; 2013. p. 115–123.
56. Eggensperger K, Feurer M, Hutter F, et al. Towards an empirical foundation for assessing bayesian optimization of hyperparameters. In NIPS 2013 workshop on Bayesian Optimization in Theory and Practice; 2013 Dec 10; Lake Tahoe, USA: NIPS; 2013. p. 3.
57. 10.48550/arXiv.1807.0177410.48550/arXiv.1807.01774 ↗
58. 10.1145/2806777.280694510.1145/2806777.2806945 ↗
59. Elshawi R Maher M Sakr S. Automated machine learning: state-of-the-art and open challenges; 2019. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02287.
60. 10.1109/ICDM.2008.1710.1109/ICDM.2008.17 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13393310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133933 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.aei.2020.10112610.1016/j.aei.2020.101126 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.13527910.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135279 ↗
64. 10.1007/s10489-021-02708-510.1007/s10489-021-02708-5 ↗
65. 10.1007/s11053-022-10017-y10.1007/s11053-022-10017-y ↗
66. 10.1007/s41965-019-00023-010.1007/s41965-019-00023-0 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.17310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.173 ↗
68. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12948810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129488 ↗