Response surface regression and machine learning models to predict the porosity and compressive strength of pervious concrete based on mix design parameters
Source abstract
Abstract
This study investigates the influence of aggregate size, aggregate-to-cement ratio, and compaction effort on pervious concrete's porosity and compressive strength. It proposes using response surface methodology and machine learning techniques to predict porosity and compressive strength. Fifteen mix designs (three aggregate sizes and five aggregate-to-cement ratios) with seven compaction energy levels were employed. Experimental data analysis using various regression models revealed that the quadratic model provided the best fit for predicting both porosity and compressive strength. Machine learning models were employed to predict porosity and compressive strength more accurately. Among the models investigated, the artificial neural network achieved superior performance across all datasets (training, testing, and validation). This suggests the artificial neural network model can effectively capture the complex relationships between input and response variables. Sensitivity analysis using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) revealed that compaction energy significantly impacts both porosity and compressive, while aggregate size has the most negligible influence.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Urban Stormwater Management Solutions · Smart Materials for Construction · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
University of Jaffna
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12504610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125046 ↗
2. ACI-522R. (2010). Report on pervious concrete, technical documents. American Concrete Institute.
3. 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.02.00910.1016/j.asoc.2016.02.009 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.04010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.040 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e0084010.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00840 ↗
6. 10.1007/s42107-023-00811-110.1007/s42107-023-00811-1 ↗
7. 10.3390/su1315855210.3390/su13158552 ↗
8. 10.13189/cea.2022.10060510.13189/cea.2022.100605 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.11589510.1016/j.eswa.2021.115895 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12509510.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125095 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.10.11410.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.10.114 ↗
12. 10.1177/0361198122108723610.1177/03611981221087236 ↗
13. 10.1080/10298436.2022.205502210.1080/10298436.2022.2055022 ↗
14. 10.1080/10298436.2022.205502210.1080/10298436.2022.2055022 ↗
15. Arcolezi, K. (2022). Influence of aggregate sizes and packing combination on the properties of pervious concrete. São Paulo State University (UNESP).
16. ASTM-C1754/C1754M-12. (2012). Standard test method for density and void content of hardened pervious concrete. ASTM International.
17. BIS-269. (2015). Ordinary Portland cement - Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards.
18. BIS-383. (2016). Coarse and fine aggregate for concrete - Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards.
19. 10.1007/978-1-4615-5289-5_210.1007/978-1-4615-5289-5_2 ↗
20. 10.1080/14680629.2021.188615810.1080/14680629.2021.1886158 ↗
21. BS-EN-1097. (2020). Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates. British Standards Institution (BSI).
22. BS-EN-933. (2017). Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates. British Standards Institution (BSI).
23. 10.3390/ma1701003110.3390/ma17010031 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.03510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.035 ↗
25. 10.1080/14680629.2018.146450010.1080/14680629.2018.1464500 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.12.00710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.12.007 ↗
27. Chindaprasirt, P., Hatanaka, S., Mishima, N., Yuasa, Y., & Chareerat, T. (2009). Effects of binder strength and aggregate size on the compressive strength and void ratio of porous concrete. International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials, 16, 714–719.
28. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.07310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.073 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e0061910.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00619 ↗
30. 10.1088/1742-6596/949/1/01200910.1088/1742-6596/949/1/012009 ↗
31. 10.1680/jcoma.23.0002410.1680/jcoma.23.00024 ↗
32. 10.3390/electronics1215335410.3390/electronics12153354 ↗
33. 10.1186/s41747-020-0145-y10.1186/s41747-020-0145-y ↗
34. 10.1007/s44218-023-00033-710.1007/s44218-023-00033-7 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.83910.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.839 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.08610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.086 ↗
37. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000379110.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003791 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.11700010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117000 ↗
39. 10.3390/su1502114610.3390/su15021146 ↗
40. Forthofer, R. N., Lee, E. S., & Hernandez, M. (2007). 13 - Linear regression. In R. N. Forthofer, E. S. Lee, & M. Hernandez (Eds.), Biostatistics (Second edition) (pp. 349–386). Academic Press.
41. 10.1155/2014/96397110.1155/2014/963971 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12929410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129294 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.bdr.2017.07.00310.1016/j.bdr.2017.07.003 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.10630710.1016/j.jobe.2023.106307 ↗
45. 10.1016/S0378-3758(96)00209-110.1016/S0378-3758(96)00209-1 ↗
46. 10.1155/2020/886318110.1155/2020/8863181 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12075910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120759 ↗
48. 10.32604/cmes.2022.01779210.32604/cmes.2022.017792 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.02210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.022 ↗
50. 10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7_310.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7_3 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.10010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.100 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.09410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.094 ↗
53. Joshi, T., & Dave, U. (2016). Evaluation of strength, permeability and void ratio of pervious concrete with changing w/c ratio and aggregate size. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7, 276–284.
54. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.12.00710.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.12.007 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11926010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119260 ↗
56. 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:12(764)10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:12(764) ↗
57. 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.12277810.1016/j.eswa.2023.122778 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e2618810.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26188 ↗
59. Khuri, A., & JA, C. (1996). Response surfaces: Designs and analyses. CRC Press.
60. 10.1016/B978-0-12-816514-0.00005-910.1016/B978-0-12-816514-0.00005-9 ↗
61. 10.1007/s12205-022-1918-z10.1007/s12205-022-1918-z ↗
62. 10.1680/jmacr.19.0019410.1680/jmacr.19.00194 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.02210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.022 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13224710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132247 ↗
65. 10.1038/s41524-022-00810-x10.1038/s41524-022-00810-x ↗
66. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.05710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.057 ↗
67. 10.1080/14680629.2023.223808210.1080/14680629.2023.2238082 ↗
68. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13124610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131246 ↗
69. 10.1080/14680629.2024.233119310.1080/14680629.2024.2331193 ↗
70. 10.1007/s40808-021-01195-410.1007/s40808-021-01195-4 ↗
71. Mao S. (1981). Regression analysis and experiment design. Huadong Normal University Shanghai China p. 375.
72. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12028610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120286 ↗
73. 10.38094/jastt145710.38094/jastt1457 ↗
74. 10.1088/1757-899X/471/3/03202710.1088/1757-899X/471/3/032027 ↗
75. Miller, D. D. (2023). Chapter 7 - The calculated uncertainty of scientific discovery: From maths to deep maths. In S. G. Krantz, A. S. R. Srinivasa Rao, & C. R. Rao (Eds.), Handbook of statistics (pp. 203–226). Elsevier.
76. 10.1007/978-3-030-89010-0_1010.1007/978-3-030-89010-0_10 ↗
77. 10.1063/5.004459110.1063/5.0044591 ↗
78. 10.1016/j.matchar.2010.05.00410.1016/j.matchar.2010.05.004 ↗
79. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.666.23510.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.666.235 ↗
80. 10.1080/19401493.2017.135491910.1080/19401493.2017.1354919 ↗
81. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.09.01010.1016/j.cemconres.2016.09.010 ↗
82. 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.01810.1016/j.matpr.2022.02.018 ↗
83. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.03910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.039 ↗
84. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12657810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126578 ↗
85. 10.1155/2012/38079510.1155/2012/380795 ↗
86. 10.1111/j.1151-2916.1953.tb12837.x10.1111/j.1151-2916.1953.tb12837.x ↗
87. 10.1007/s40890-021-00129-010.1007/s40890-021-00129-0 ↗
88. 10.1016/B978-0-12-819055-5.00019-X10.1016/B978-0-12-819055-5.00019-X ↗
89. 10.1080/10589759.2023.224094010.1080/10589759.2023.2240940 ↗
90. 10.1080/10589759.2024.230425710.1080/10589759.2024.2304257 ↗
91. 10.1007/s42107-023-00790-310.1007/s42107-023-00790-3 ↗
92. 10.1080/10298436.2023.228714610.1080/10298436.2023.2287146 ↗
93. 10.1007/s42107-023-00956-z10.1007/s42107-023-00956-z ↗
94. 10.1016/j.measurement.2023.11400610.1016/j.measurement.2023.114006 ↗
95. 10.1080/10298436.2024.233791610.1080/10298436.2024.2337916 ↗
96. 10.1177/1536867X2090968810.1177/1536867X20909688 ↗
97. 10.1080/19648189.2021.200851110.1080/19648189.2021.2008511 ↗
98. 10.1080/14680629.2022.216433210.1080/14680629.2022.2164332 ↗
99. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12953410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129534 ↗
100. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12953510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129535 ↗