Developing interpretable machine learning models for predicting the compressive strength of roller-compacted concrete
Source abstract
Abstract
Roller compacted concrete (RCC) mixed with industrial by-products has significant applications in pavement engineering. However, laboratory determination of its compressive strength (CS) has several time and resource constraints. Thus, this study employed four machine learning (ML) algorithms including Gradient Boosting Regressor (GBR) and Multi Expression Programming (MEP) etc. to develop predictive models for RCC's CS. The algorithm results revealed that GBR provided the highest accuracy achieving a testing R² value of 0.99. In contrast, MEP generated an empirical equation for predictions which other algorithms could not produce. Additionally, interpretable ML approaches such as shapely additive (SHAP) and individual conditional expectation (ICE) analysis were used to determine the most crucial inputs for CS determination. Furthermore, a graphical user interface (GUI) was developed to allow users to obtain rapid CS predictions based on RCC mixture composition thus facilitating informed decision-making in project design and execution.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Xinjiang Institute of Engineering
Ministry of Education
China University of Mining and Technology
National University of Sciences and Technology
Aston University
University of Manitoba
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST)
King Abdulaziz University
King Saud University
References (68)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1088/1757-899X/245/2/02206410.1088/1757-899X/245/2/022064 ↗
2. 10.1080/14680629.2019.157975410.1080/14680629.2019.1579754 ↗
3. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000409310.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004093 ↗
4. 10.1007/s00366-009-0140-710.1007/s00366-009-0140-7 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.matlet.2003.10.00710.1016/j.matlet.2003.10.007 ↗
6. Çalış G. & Yıldızel S. A. (2019). Investigation of roller compacted concrete: Literature review. http://earsiv.kmu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11492/4078.10.20528/cjcrl.2019.03.003 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00203-310.1016/S0008-8846(99)00203-3 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.11832010.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.118320 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.14194710.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141947 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.13510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.135 ↗
11. Courard, L., Michel, F, & Delhez, P (2010) Use of concrete road recycled aggregates for roller compacted concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 390–395. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095006180900244X10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.040 ↗
12. 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2023.11576410.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2023.115764 ↗
13. 10.12989/SEM.2024.91.3.23910.12989/SEM.2024.91.3.239 ↗
14. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.000342310.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003423 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.10839310.1016/j.jobe.2023.108393 ↗
16. 10.1186/S10033-024-01107-410.1186/S10033-024-01107-4 ↗
17. 10.1371/journal.pone.029736410.1371/journal.pone.0297364 ↗
18. 10.1061/9780784479216.03910.1061/9780784479216.039 ↗
19. 10.1142/S021987622450066X10.1142/S021987622450066X ↗
20. 10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2022.10749910.1016/J.SOILDYN.2022.107499 ↗
21. Inqiad, W. B., Javed, M F, & Siddique, M S (2024). Predicting natural vibration period of concrete frame structures having masonry infill using machine learning techniques. Journal of Building, 96, 110417. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710224019855
22. Inqiad, W. B., Javed, M F, Siddique, M S, & Alarifi, S S (2024). A comparative analysis of boosting and genetic programming techniques for predicting mechanical properties of soilcrete materials. Materials Today, 40, 109920. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352492824019019
23. Inqiad, W. B., Javed, M F, Siddique, M S., & Khan, N M (2024). Comparison of boosting and genetic programming techniques for prediction of tensile strain capacity of engineered cementitious composites (ECC). Materials Today , 109222. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352492824012030
24. 10.1038/s41598-024-65905-510.1038/s41598-024-65905-5 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.12132210.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121322 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.03.03710.1016/j.jmrt.2023.03.037 ↗
27. 10.1038/s41598-024-57896-010.1038/s41598-024-57896-0 ↗
28. 10.1007/S12046-021-01649-610.1007/S12046-021-01649-6 ↗
29. 10.1016/J.CSCM.2024.E0299110.1016/J.CSCM.2024.E02991 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e0411210.1016/j.cscm.2024.e04112 ↗
31. Khayat K. H. & Libre N. A. (2014). Roller compacted concrete: Field evaluation and mixture optimization. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/27986.
32. 10.1520/JTE2018003210.1520/JTE20180032 ↗
33. 10.1016/J.AUTCON.2025.10638010.1016/J.AUTCON.2025.106380 ↗
34. Long, X., Mao, M, Su, T, Su, Y, & Tian, M (2023). Machine learning method to predict dynamic compressive response of concrete-like material at high strain rates. Defence Technology, 100–111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221491472200027710.1016/j.dt.2022.02.003 ↗
35. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S-I (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
36. Maftoun M. Shadkam N. Komamardakhi S. S. S. Mansor Z. & Joloudari J. H. (2024). Malicious URL detection using optimized Hist gradient boosting classifier based on grid search method. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2406.10286.
37. 10.1002/tal.211110.1002/tal.2111 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.10910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.109 ↗
39. Ngo I. Ma L. Zhai J. & Wang Y. (2023). Enhancing fly ash utilization in backfill materials treated with CO2 carbonation under ambient conditions. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 33(3) 323–337.10.1016/j.ijmst.2023.02.001 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.10430210.1016/j.jobe.2022.104302 ↗
41. 10.1007/s00707-023-03743-810.1007/s00707-023-03743-8 ↗
42. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1458572/v110.21203/rs.3.rs-1458572/v1 ↗
43. 10.9790/1684-1162040810.9790/1684-11620408 ↗
44. 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2024.13877310.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2024.138773 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12789610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127896 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12657810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126578 ↗
47. 10.12983/ijsrk-2015-p0260-026910.12983/ijsrk-2015-p0260-0269 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.ijprt.2016.08.00310.1016/j.ijprt.2016.08.003 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.10472110.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104721 ↗
50. 10.1007/978-3-642-41136-6_510.1007/978-3-642-41136-6_5 ↗
51. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000432510.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004325 ↗
52. 10.1080/10298436.2019.156791910.1080/10298436.2019.1567919 ↗
53. 10.3390/buildings1207091410.3390/buildings12070914 ↗
54. Shahin M. Jaksa M. B. & Maier H. R. (2008). Physical modeling of rolling dynamic compaction view project artificial neural networks-pile capacity prediction view project. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228364758.
55. 10.1016/J.COMPGEO.2024.10682710.1016/J.COMPGEO.2024.106827 ↗
56. 10.1515/rams-2023-018910.1515/rams-2023-0189 ↗
57. 10.3390/ma1509316610.3390/ma15093166 ↗
58. 10.1016/J.TUST.2025.10686410.1016/J.TUST.2025.106864 ↗
59. 10.1007/S10064-024-03674-110.1007/S10064-024-03674-1 ↗
60. 10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2024.13844810.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2024.138448 ↗
61. 10.3390/ma1513458210.3390/ma15134582 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12508810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125088 ↗
63. 10.1016/J.MEASUREMENT.2025.11876410.1016/J.MEASUREMENT.2025.118764 ↗
64. 10.1680/JADCR.23.0020510.1680/JADCR.23.00205 ↗
65. 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2025.10905210.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2025.109052 ↗
66. 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUC.2023.10715310.1016/J.COMPSTRUC.2023.107153 ↗
67. 10.1016/J.ISTRUC.2024.10772810.1016/J.ISTRUC.2024.107728 ↗
68. 10.1016/J.ENGGEO.2025.10814810.1016/J.ENGGEO.2025.108148 ↗