A Hybrid Polynomial Chaos Expansion-Based Surrogate Framework for Reliability and Interpretability of Concrete Compressive Strength
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Probabilistic analysis of concrete strength is essential for reliability-based design, but it requires surrogate models that are both accurate and analytically tractable. Classical statistical surrogates such as polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) are well suited for global sensitivity and reliability analysis, yet they can struggle when fitted directly to sparse, noisy experimental data. In contrast, machine learning models such as gradient-boosted trees (GBTs) achieve high predictive accuracy but are difficult to use directly for uncertainty quantification (UQ). This study develops and validates a hybrid framework that combines these strengths. First, a GBT model is trained on a curated experimental database of concrete mixes and used as a high-fidelity “signal extractor,” learning the underlying nonlinear mapping from mix composition and curing age to compressive strength. Second, a PCE is constructed as a surrogate of this deterministic GBT response using Latin hypercube sampling. The resulting hybrid GBT-PCE model enables efficient global sensitivity analysis (Sobol and Kucherenko indices) and reliability assessment. Its performance is critically compared with two benchmarks: a standalone PCE trained directly on the data and an advanced polynomial chaos–Kriging (PCK) surrogate. Results show that the hybrid model attains predictive accuracy comparable to the best purely data-driven surrogates while providing numerically stable global sensitivity indices. Interpretability in the proposed framework is provided by global sensitivity indices and reliability metrics obtained from the PCE surrogate. The framework therefore offers a practical tool for risk-informed design and mix optimization, especially when experimental data are noisy and multisource.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Affiliations
Université du Québec
Cadi Ayyad Univ.
Moroccan School of Engineering Sciences (École Marocaine des Sciences de l’Ingénieur)
References (80)
Show source-provided references
1. ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2011. Guide to evaluation of strength test results of concrete. ACI 214R-11. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
2. Ahmad, A., W. Ahmad, F. Aslam, and P. Joyklad. 2022. “Compressive strength prediction of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete via advanced machine learning techniques.” Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (Jun): e00840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00840.
3. 10.4314/fuoyejet.v9i2.2710.4314/fuoyejet.v9i2.27 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13939810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.139398 ↗
5. 10.3390/buildings1504054410.3390/buildings15040544 ↗
6. 10.3390/ma1521743210.3390/ma15217432 ↗
7. 10.1038/s41598-024-84325-z10.1038/s41598-024-84325-z ↗
8. 10.1016/j.clema.2025.10029910.1016/j.clema.2025.100299 ↗
9. 10.1002/suco.20190039810.1002/suco.201900398 ↗
10. 10.1080/16168658.2019.161103010.1080/16168658.2019.1611030 ↗
11. 10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00071-810.1016/S0958-9465(00)00071-8 ↗
12. 10.1007/BF0247201610.1007/BF02472016 ↗
13. 10.21833/ijaas.2017.010.01910.21833/ijaas.2017.010.019 ↗
14. 10.1007/s13369-014-1139-y10.1007/s13369-014-1139-y ↗
15. 10.1007/s00362-019-01148-110.1007/s00362-019-01148-1 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.10604710.1016/j.engappai.2023.106047 ↗
17. Chopra, P., R. K. Sharma, and M. Kumar. 2016. “Prediction of compressive strength of concrete using artificial neural network and genetic programming.” Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016 (1): 7648467. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7648467.
18. 10.1155/2018/548170510.1155/2018/5481705 ↗
19. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000290210.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002902 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13354510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133545 ↗
21. Ekanayake, I. U., D. P. P. Meddage, and U. Rathnayake. 2022. “A novel approach to explain the black-box nature of machine learning in compressive strength predictions of concrete using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP).” Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (Jun): e01059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01059.
22. 10.1002/suco.20170095010.1002/suco.201700950 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.11026910.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110269 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.11700010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117000 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.10615510.1016/j.engappai.2023.106155 ↗
26. 10.1137/16M106193X10.1137/16M106193X ↗
27. 10.3390/math1208126710.3390/math12081267 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.01.01010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.01.010 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.10790410.1016/j.jobe.2023.107904 ↗
30. 10.1038/s41598-024-67850-910.1038/s41598-024-67850-9 ↗
31. Junaidi, A., and R. D. Hiraliya Maesa Hariyanto. 2022. “Effect of adding superplasticizer on high initial compressive strength of high-performance concrete (HPC) FC’= 36.62 MPA.” Int. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. Res. 9 (10): 73–81. https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v9.i10.2022.1241.
32. Kashem, A., R. Karim, S. C. Malo, P. Das, S. D. Datta, and M. Alharthai. 2024. “Hybrid data-driven approaches to predicting the compressive strength of ultra-high-performance concrete using SHAP and PDP analyses.” Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 20 (Jul): e02991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e02991.
33. 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00164-110.1016/S0008-8846(98)00164-1 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.12.02010.1016/j.cpc.2011.12.020 ↗
35. Lal Mohiddin, S., D. Ravi Prasad, and D. Ramaseshu. 2025. “A review of machine learning models for concrete strength prediction and mix optimization.” J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 10 (2): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-025-00636-2.
36. 10.1007/s11356-021-12877-y10.1007/s11356-021-12877-y ↗
37. 10.3390/pr1102039010.3390/pr11020390 ↗
38. 10.3390/ma1723572710.3390/ma17235727 ↗
39. 10.1002/suco.20200015510.1002/suco.202000155 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.05710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.057 ↗
41. Malhotra, K., D. Mishra, and C. S. Tumrate. 2020. “Machine learning prediction of mechanical properties of concrete: Critical review.” Constr. Build. Mater. 260 (Nov): 119889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119889.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119889 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13834610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.138346 ↗
43. 10.3390/app1303195310.3390/app13031953 ↗
44. 10.1002/suco.20200021110.1002/suco.202000211 ↗
45. 10.28991/cej-2020-0309153710.28991/cej-2020-03091537 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.10544410.1016/j.jobe.2022.105444 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.01.00710.1016/j.jobe.2018.01.007 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.14410.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.144 ↗
49. 10.1080/23311916.2023.229749110.1080/23311916.2023.2297491 ↗
50. 10.3390/infrastructures1002002610.3390/infrastructures10020026 ↗
51. 10.1201/b1709810.1201/b17098 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.03110.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.031 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.20010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.200 ↗
54. 10.1080/15623599.2024.234500810.1080/15623599.2024.2345008 ↗
55. 10.1177/1475921721100795610.1177/14759217211007956 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.clema.2023.10021110.1016/j.clema.2023.100211 ↗
57. Qureshi, H. J., M. Alyami, R. Nawaz, I. Y. Hakeem, F. Aslam, B. Iftikhar, and Y. Gamil. 2023. “Prediction of compressive strength of two-stage (preplaced aggregate) concrete using gene expression programming and random forest.” Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 19 (Dec): e02581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02581.
58. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e2250210.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22502 ↗
59. 10.21660/2024.118.439710.21660/2024.118.4397 ↗
60. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000374110.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003741 ↗
61. 10.1615/Int.J.UncertaintyQuantification.201501246710.1615/Int.J.UncertaintyQuantification.2015012467 ↗
62. 10.1038/s41598-025-10342-110.1038/s41598-025-10342-1 ↗
63. Shobeiri, V., B. Bennett, T. Xie, and P. Visintin. 2023. “Mix design optimization of concrete containing fly ash and slag for global warming potential and cost reduction.” Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 18 (Jul): e01832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01832.
64. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12502110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125021 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.14184410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.141844 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.02.01210.1016/j.cemconres.2010.02.012 ↗
67. 10.3390/su1203083010.3390/su12030830 ↗
68. Verma R. U. Khan B. K. Singh and R. A. Khan. 2023. “Algorithms of AI in deciding optimum mix design of concrete: Review.” In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Computing Communications and Cyber-Security 729–742. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-19-1142-2_57 ↗
69. 10.3390/app1417808310.3390/app14178083 ↗
70. 10.1617/s11527-008-9436-010.1617/s11527-008-9436-0 ↗
71. 10.3390/ma1812285110.3390/ma18122851 ↗
72. Yahya, I. A., A. U. Abubakar, Y. H. Mohammed, and S. Y. Usman. 2025. “Comparative study on the variability margin of concrete strength between weight and volume batching methods.” ABUAD J. Eng. Res. Dev. 8 (1): 240–246. https://doi.org/10.53982/ajerd.2025.0801.25-j.
73. 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00165-310.1016/S0008-8846(98)00165-3 ↗
74. YiFei L. C. MaoSen and M. Abdel Wahab. 2023. “Data-driven Kriging model for predicting concrete compressive strength and parameter correlation analysis.” In Vol. 311 of Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Numerical Modelling in Engineering 119–128. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8429-7_11.10.1007/978-981-19-8429-7_11 ↗
75. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.09.00610.1016/j.cemconres.2018.09.006 ↗
76. Zhang S. 2005. “Evaluation of concrete mixing and its effects on portland cement concrete (PCC) properties.” Master’s thesis Dept. of Civil Engineering Iowa State Univ.
77. 10.1038/s41598-024-69616-910.1038/s41598-024-69616-9 ↗
78. Zhang, W., D. Liu, and K. Cao. 2024b. “Prediction of concrete compressive strength using support vector machine regression and non-destructive testing.” Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 21 (Dec): e03416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03416.
79. 10.1038/s41598-024-79502-z10.1038/s41598-024-79502-z ↗
80. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.10424210.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104242 ↗