www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Predicting compressive strength

of high‑performance concrete
with high volume ground
granulated blast‑furnace slag
replacement using boosting
machine learning algorithms
Vimal Rathakrishnan1*, Salmia Bt. Beddu1 & Ali Najah Ahmed2

Predicting the compressive strength of concrete is a complicated process due to the heterogeneous
mixture of concrete and high variable materials. Researchers have predicted the compressive strength
of concrete for various mixes using machine learning and deep learning models. In this research,
compressive strength of high-performance concrete with high volume ground granulated blast-
furnace slag replacement is predicted using boosting machine learning (BML) algorithms, namely,
Light Gradient Boosting Machine, CatBoost Regressor, Gradient Boosting Regressor (GBR), Adaboost
Regressor, and Extreme Gradient Boosting. In these studies, the BML model’s performance is
evaluated based on prediction accuracy and prediction error rates, i.e., ­R2, MSE, RMSE, MAE, RMSLE,
and MAPE. Additionally, the BML models were further optimised with Random Search algorithms and
compared to BML models with default hyperparameters. Comparing all 5 BML models, the GBR model
shows the highest prediction accuracy with ­R2 of 0.96 and lowest model error with MAE and RMSE of
2.73 and 3.40, respectively for test dataset. In conclusion, the GBR model are the best performing BML
for predicting the compressive strength of concrete with the highest prediction accuracy, and lowest
modelling error.

Literature review and problem statement. Concrete has been commonly used in construction and
architecture due to its favourable engineering properties. Concrete has the characteristics of rich raw material,
low price, and high compressive strength and good d ­ urability1. Concrete comprises four primary components:
coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, cement, and water. Concrete’s economic value allows it to be widely used in
constructions and the accessibility to the material available in the local market. It also demonstrates excellent
benefits over other construction materials such as steel, and concrete can be produced with minimum effort.
In certain instances, supplementary materials like fly ash (PFA)2,3, blast furnace slag (GGBS)4, silica f­ ume5, and
other industrial waste/by-products are added in concrete to enhance the mechanical properties of the c­ oncrete4.
The introduction of industrial waste/by-product6,7 into concrete offers environmental benefits while increasing
the longevity and resiliency of concrete structures.
Among the various concrete property indices, compressive strength is the most critical because it is directly
related to the structural safety and is required for determining the performance of structures throughout their
life, from new structural design to old structural a­ ssessment8.
When dealing with concrete materials, one of the difficulties in selecting the appropriate materials and pre-
dicting the mechanical properties of the concrete, i.e., compressive strength, is due to cost and the availability of
local ­material9. It is vital to have robust and reliable predictive models based on existing input and output data
at the early stage to drive down the cost of making further experiments and reduce the cost associated with the

1
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), 43000 Selangor,
Malaysia. 2Institute of Energy Infrastructure (IEI), Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), 43000 Selangor,
Malaysia. *email: [email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 1

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

A program that can sense,

Artificial Intelligence reason, act and adopt

Machine Learning Algorithms whose

performance improve as they
are exposed to more data
over time

Deep Learning Subset of ML in which

multilayered neural networks
learn from vast amount of
data

Figure 1.  Artificial Intelligence sub-classes.

No Type of Concrete Model Dataset Year Reference

32
1 Fly-ash based concrete Decision tree, ensemble bagging, Gene expression programming 270 2021
Decision tree, random forest, support vector, artificial neural network, multiple linear 43
2 High-performance concrete from industrial wastes 1030 2021
regression, ensemble bagging & boosting
44
3 Self-compacting concrete with fly-ash Data Envelopment Analysis 114 2021
Boosting- and tree-based models, K-nearest neighbour, linear, ridge, lasso regressor, 5
4 Steel fibre-reinforced concrete 220 2021
support vector regressor, multilayer perceptron models
23
5 Self-compacting concrete with high-volume fly ash Support vector machine 337 2020
Multivariate adaptive regression splines, kernel ridge regression, gradient boosting 25
6 High-performance concrete 1030 2020
machines, gaussian process regression
27
7 High-strength concrete Gene expression programming 357 2020
Artificial neural network: Sequential Feature Selection (SFS) and Neural Interpretation 20
8 Ultra-high-performance concrete 110 2020
Diagram (NID)
3
9 Alkali-activated concrete Random Forest 180 2020
45
10 Ordinary concrete Extreme gradient boosting 1030 2020
46
11 Self-compacting concrete Artificial neural network 205 2019
16
12 Self-compacting concrete with fly ash Enhanced multiclass support vector machine and fuzzy rule 114 2019
47
13 Lightweight self-compacting concrete Random forest regression 131 2019
33
14 High-performance concrete Artificial neural network: modified firefly algorithm 1133 2018
48
15 High-performance concrete Support vector machine, enhanced cat swarm optimisation 2200 2018
49
16 Lightweight Aggregate Concretes Extreme learning machine regressor, particle swarm optimization 75 2018
31
17 Self-compacting concrete containing fly ash Decision tree algorithms: M5′ and multivariate adaptive regression splines 114 2018

Table 1.  Summary of previous studies on concrete strength prediction.

risk of non-compliance concrete during ­construction5. With the use of suitable models, it can lead to success
in finding combination inputs that can achieve meaningful outcomes and, at the same time, saves considerable
time and money. However, empirical, and statistical models, such as linear and nonlinear regression, have been
widely used. However, these models require laborious experimental work to develop, and can provide inaccurate
results when the relationships between concrete properties and mixture composition and curing conditions are
­complex10.
ML is a sub-class of AI that self-learning through algorithms and improves its performance based on previ-
ous datasets/experience. The distinction between AI, ML, and DL is illustrated in Fig. 1. With minimal human
input, ML algorithms will automatically learn and improve over ­time6. ML has been widely applied in the field
of engineering to solve a variety of problems i.e., predict outages, estimate angular velocity, components failure
prognostics and prediction of fatigue ­life11–14. In civil engineering, AI and ML have been previously employed
to tackle problems in various structural engineering ­fields15. ML application is also used in building structural
design & performance assessment, improving finite element modelling of structures, and enhancing concrete
properties prediction & a­ ssessment9,16–20.
Given the popularity of machine learning, especially in concrete technology, various studies have been con-
ducted using ML/DL ­approaches10. Table 1 below shows the summary of concrete compressive strength pre-
diction for various types of concrete using various ML and DL models. Many empirical and statistical models,
i.e., linear and nonlinear regression algorithms, were employed to predict the properties of c­ oncrete10. Multiple
Linear Regression (MLR)21, Support Vector Machine (SVR)22,23, Multilayer Perceptron (MLP)24, and Gradient
­Boosting25,26 are most used ML algorithms to predict the mechanical and chemical properties of concrete. In gen-
eral, the compressive strength prediction was undertaken for several type of concrete i.e., ordinary c­ oncrete8,10,
high-performance ­concrete25,27–30, ultra-high-performance concrete 20, and green concrete with supplementary
cementitious material i.e., fly a­ sh16,31,32, blast furnace s­ lag4 and recycled a­ ggregates6. ML/DL is also used to predict

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 2

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

other mechanical and chemical properties of concrete, i.e., prediction of concrete shear ­strength15,24, 30], tensile
­strength33, flexural ­strength5, the thermal conductivity of ­concrete34, and chloride concentration of c­ oncrete35.
For the DL model, Artificial Neural Network (ANN)4,7,29,36–38 was widely used in most previously reported
studies. The use of boosting algorithms is not extensively reported in any previous studies except the GBR mod-
els. The proposed boosting algorithms were chosen based on their popularity and frequency in other research
areas such as biomedical and construction hazard analysis, which reports that the BML models have higher
prediction accuracy than other ML and DL m ­ odels39–42. We implemented and analysed the accuracy and error
of compressive strength prediction for five different boosting algorithms, namely LBGM, CATB, GBR, ADAB,
and XGB. Additionally, the BML models are enhanced using the Random Search (RS) optimization process,
which involves tuning the hyper-parameters of the BML algorithms.

Objectives. The study’s objective is to identify the best performing BML models, i.e., LBGM, CATB, GBR,
ADAB, and XGB to predict the HPC with high volume GGBS using BML algorithms, i.e., LBGM, CATB, GBR,
ADAB, and XGB. The BML models were then optimised using the Random Search (RS) optimisation process
by tuning the hyper-parameters of each BML model function. Additionally, comparison studies were also con-
ducted using commonly used ML models, i.e., linear regression, decision tree, random forest, etc., to evaluate the
performance of the BML model in predicting the concrete strength.
The fundamentals behind BML algorithms models are defined in Sect. 2, followed by the statistical proper-
ties analysis of the dataset & modelling approach, findings from the optimised BML model, comparison studies
between other ML models, and model validation results are provided in Sect. 3. The findings of each model’s
prediction accuracy and modelling errors are concluded in Sect. 4.

Methodology
BML algorithms. Light gradient boosting machine (LBGM). LGBM is a gradient boosting framework that
uses tree-based learning algorithms developed by ­Microsoft50. LBGM uses two innovative sampling techniques:
Gradient-based One-Side Sampling (GOSS) and Exclusive Feature Bundling (EFB). GOSS excludes a substantial
fraction of data instances with small gradients and uses the remainder to estimate the information gain. Since
data instances with large gradients contribute more to the computation of information gain, GOSS can generate
a highly accurate estimate of information gain with a significantly smaller data set.
EFB allows for the grouping of mutually exclusive features, hence reducing the number of features. It also
demonstrates that while determining the optimal bundling of exclusive features, a greedy approach can reach an
approximation ratio of relatively high. It was reported that LGBM speeds up the training process of conventional
­ GBoost50.
GBDT by up to over 20 times while achieving almost the same accuracy, and it is six times faster than X

CAT boost regressor (CATB). CATB is an open-sourced machine learning algorithm developed by Yandex in
2017. CATB is a decision tree algorithm based on gradient boosted decision trees. The algorithms in CATB
models are a series of decision trees constructed sequentially, with each new tree having a lower loss than the
prior trees. The starting parameters determine the number of trees generated, and overfitting is avoided using an
overfitting detector. The processes of tree construction for a single tree in CATB algorithms include computing
splits in advance, converting categorical features to numerical features, selecting the tree structure, and calculat-
ing values in leaves.
Generally, CATB employed greedy algorithms in optimising the prediction accuracy. The features of CATB
models are ordered according to their splits and are then substituted in each leaf. The depth of the tree and other
constraints for structure selection is specified with pre-modeling parameters, and a random permutation of clas-
sification/regression objects is conducted before the construction of each new tree. CATB models validate the
model performance with a metric that indicates the direction in which the function should be improved further
when deciding the construction of the next tree. CATB model surpasses leading GBR packages and achieves
new state-of-the-art performance on common ­benchmarks51,52.

Gradient boosting regressor (GBR). Friedman presented the GBR model as an ensemble method for regression
and classification in 1999. The gradient boosting approach compares each iteration of the randomly chosen
training set to the base model. In the GBR model, the lower the training data fraction, the faster the regression,
as the model fits smaller data each iteration. GBR model requires the following tuning parameters: ntrees and
shrinkage rate, where ntrees is the number of trees to be grown, and the shrinkage parameter, often referred to
as the learning rate applied to each tree in the ­expansion25,53.
This algorithm’s fundamental foundation is ’boosting.’ The boosting process aids in transitioning prediction
from a ’weak’ learner via the additive training process. The essential advantage of GBR algorithms is that it avoids
overfitting and makes efficient use of computational resources by using an objective function. Besides improving
output performance, GBR algorithms reduce the selected error function ­further54.

Adaboost regressor (ADAB). ADAB, an acronym for Adaptive Boosting, is a meta-algorithm for statistical cat-
egorization developed in 2003 by Yoav Freund and Robert Schapire. It can be combined with a variety of other
types of learning algorithms to enhance performance. The output of the other learning algorithms, i.e., ’weak
learners,’ is combined into a weighted sum representing the boosted classifier’s final output. ADAB is adaptive
because it adjusts succeeding weak learners favoring instances misclassified by previous classifiers/regressors. It
is less prone to overfitting than other learning algorithms in some ­cases29.
The individual learners in ADAB algorithms may be ineffective. Still, if their performance is marginally better
than random guessing, the final model can be demonstrated to converge to a powerful learner. This technique

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 3

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Boosting
Bagging
Models are Gradient XGBoost
A multiple-decision- Random Forest
Decision Tree designed Boosting An algorithm that
trees-based A bagging
An illustration of sequentially by An uses parallel
ensemble meta- algorithm that
potential solutions eliminating implementations processing, tree
algorithm selects a subset of
for a decision previously of gradient pruning, handling
incorporating features at random
based problem accumulated descent algorithms missing values
predictions from to create a forest
with specified errors while on sequential and regularisation
multiple decision or array of
conditions boosting the best- models to reduce to prevent
trees via a majority decision trees.
performing error rate. overfitting.
voting methodology.
models.

Figure 2.  The evolution of XGBoost.

benefits from a single best-fit decision model formed from the outcomes of several decision trees, each of which
is constructed using a random selection of base features, i.e., decision factors from a training ­dataset55,56.

Extreme gradient boosting (XGB). Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) or XGBoost is a decision tree-based
ensemble ML algorithm that uses gradient boosting to make predictions for unstructured data. Tianqi Chen
and Guestrin developed XGBoost, and the method uses the conventional tree gradient boosting a­ lgorithm45
to create state-of-the-art algorithms, the ‘extreme gradient boosting’23. The multiple Kaggle competition win-
ner ‘XGBoost’ is a highly effective ML algorithm due to its scalable tree boosting system and sparsity-aware
algorithm in modelling structured datasets. The algorithm has been the source of countless cutting-edge appli-
cations, and it has been the driving force behind many of these recent advances. It’s been widely used as indus-
trial solutions such as customer churn ­prediction57, applicant risk ­assessment58, malware ­detection59, stock mar-
ket ­selection60, classification of traffic a­ ccidents61, diseases i­dentification40, and even in predicting the death of
patience during SARS-COV-2(Covid-19) t­ reatment42. The most significant benefit of XGBoost is its scalability
across any ­condition62. In general, the XGBoost algorithms are the evolution of decision tree algorithms that
were improved over time. Figure 2 below shows the development of decision tree-based algorithms to XGBoost.

Model structure. For the most part, we utilised the Python programming language on Google’s Colab plat-
form to analyse the data and create the models. An open-source, low-code machine learning library ‘PyCaret’
was used in r­ esearch63. Figure 3 illustrates the step-by-step procedure for training, optimising, and validating the
BML models in predicting the concrete compressive strength. Seven key processes are involved in the develop-
ment of the optimised BML model, and each stage is described in detail below, with brief explanations:

i. Data Collection – This entails collecting data from the laboratory and compiling it appropriately.
ii. Data Pre-Processing – To correctly identify and arrange the acquired data, it is necessary to sort out the
missing values and then normalise the dataset in preparation for model building.
iii. Model Selection—For prediction and evaluation in this research, BML algorithms, i.e., LBGM, CATB,
GBR, ADAB, and XGB, were utilised.
iv. Hyper-parameter Optimisation – The RS approach was employed in each of the five proposed BML
algorithms, and the results are compared to the original models.
v. Model Validation—Validation and testing of the models were performed using the k-fold cross-validation
approach, which randomly splits the dataset and minimises overfitting.
vi. Model Evaluation – All the models are compared, and the best performing algorithms are selected based
­ 2, RMSE, MAE, MSE, RMSLE, MAPE.
on evaluation metrics, i.e., R
vii. Analysis and Reporting – The findings in the case study are reported based on comparing various ML
models, optimisation parameters, and evaluation metrics.

Data collection and pre‑processing. Overview. A total of 152 data of HPC compressive strength data
were gathered from concrete trial mix conducted at a laboratory in Selangor, Malaysia. In general, the dataset
is composed of seven concrete components: fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, ordinary Portland cement (OPC),
ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), silica fume (SF), water, admixture, and moisture content (MC).
The dataset also contains concrete compressive strength of a Grade 80 HPC, and the compressive strength results
are available for 7, 28, 56, and 91 days. On average, each batch of concrete contains around 246 kg of GGBS and
OPC, respectively.
The proportion of cementitious content in each batch is around 45% of GGBS, 45% of OPC, and 10% of SF.
Similarly, the ratio of fine to coarse aggregate is 1:1, equating to 70% of total concrete volume with a 0.25 water-
to-cement ratio, or 138 kg of water in each batch of concrete. Additionally, the moisture content of fine and
coarse aggregate was included as input parameters since the water content in each concrete batches was adjusted
according to the moisture content in the aggregates. Details of statistical metrics are listed in Table 2 below.

Data distribution analysis. The distribution correlations between the input parameters and the compressive
strength are shown in Fig. 4. It illustrates the correlation between the data points by including the relative fre-

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 4

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3.  Step by step BML modelling approach.

Fine Coarse
Agg Agg GGBS OPC SF Water Admixture Fine MC Coarse MC Days Strength
count 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152
mean 871.7 874.3 246.6 246.3 54.4 138.7 12.2 4.4 0.5 45.5 105.2
std 11.7 10.2 1.4 0.9 0.6 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.2 31.6 14.6
min 842.0 857.0 244.0 244.0 53.0 135.0 11.5 3.2 0.2 7.0 70.3
max 900.0 904.0 250.0 248.0 56.0 149.0 12.7 6.0 1.0 91.0 131.4

Table 2.  Summary of statistical analysis of the concrete material composition.

quency distribution of each input parameter. Generally, the distribution of input parameters suggests that the
dataset is appropriately distributed and fit for machine learning modelling.

Correlation coefficient analysis. Along with statistical and distribution analysis, a correlation coefficient study
was performed to analyse the dataset and prepare for modelling. Pearson’s correlation coefficient approach indi-
cated in Eq. 1 was used to calculate the correlation ­coefficient64. Pearson’s correlation coefficient is a test statistic
that shows the statistical link between two continuous variables. It is based on the covariance approach, in which
the best method is considered for determining the relationship between two variables of interest. It reveals both
the size of the association or correlation and the direction of the relationship. The correlation between all param-
eters was analysed for this research and visualized in Fig. 5 as a Pearson’s correlation heatmap.
  
(xi − x) yi − y
Pearson Correlation Coefficeint, r =   2 (1)
(xi − x)2 yi − y

where;

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 5

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 4.  Distribution correlation of input parameters and strength.

Figure 5.  Pearson’s correlation heatmap.

r = correlation coefficient.
xi = values of the x-variable in a sample.
x = mean of the values of the x-variable.
yi = values of the y-variable in a sample.
y = mean of the values of the y-variable.
As shown in Fig. 5 above, it can be observed that the correlation between input and output parameters is
relatively low and generally in the range of -0.62 to 0.64. The range of the correlation coefficients indicates that
the input variables can be considered low to moderately correlated to the compressive strength.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 6

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

}
All Data
Training Dat a Test Dat a

Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 1 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 2 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 3 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 4 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 5 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10 Finding
Split 6 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10 Parameters
Split 7 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 8 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 9 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Split 10 Fold 1 Fold 2 Fold 3 Fold 4 Fold 5 Fold 6 Fold 7 Fold 8 Fold 9 Fold 10
Final Evaluation Test Data

Figure 6.  K-fold cross validation method.

Data split and normalisation. The dataset’s modelling proportion was randomly partitioned into two sets, i.e.,
training and testing dataset. Around 70% of the dataset was utilized for training the BML models, whereas 30%
were used to test the ­models65, 65 Before training BML models, pre-processing data is required. To prevent train-
ing from being dominated by one or a few features with large magnitude, features should be normalised so that
their range is consistent. The Z-score normalisation method was used in this study to normalise all values in a
dataset so that the mean of all values is 0 and the standard deviation is 1. Equation 2 below shows the formula to
perform a z-score normalization on every value in a dataset:
Z − Score = (x − µ)/σ (2)
where:
x: Original value.
μ: Mean of data.
σ: Standard deviation of dataset.

Model validation using K‑Fold cross‑validation. Validation and testing of the models were performed using
the k-fold cross-validation method illustrated in Fig. 6. In this study, a total of ten folds or k value of 10 were
used. The dataset is randomly separated into test and training data and divided into k groups, using this cross-
validation procedure. Validation of the model is performed on one of the groups, and training is performed on
the remaining groups. The process is performed k times more until each distinct group is used as the validation
set. The ultimate performance of the model is determined using test data that the model ‘not seen’ during train-
ing.
K-fold cross-validation enables the model to be trained and verified several times, resulting in a more accurate
model with less overfitting. With the more traditional hold-out strategy, the dataset is partitioned into train-
ing, validation, and test sets, which reduces number of samples for model training. The model’s performance is
contingent upon a random selection of samples for the training, validation, and test sets.

Model evaluation. In this paper, six separate statistical measurement parameters were used to calculate the
prediction efficiency of the BML models. In simpler terms, the evaluation parameters estimate the accumulated
error in predictions concerning actual observations. The statistical parameters are: coefficient of determination
­(R2), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), mean squared error (MSE), root mean
squared logarithmic error (RMSLE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). These mathematical formu-
lations are defined in Eqs. 3–8; in this case, n is the total number of test dataset records while y′ and y are the
predicted and measured values, respectively. The values of R ­ 2 would range from 0 to 1 – the closer the value is to
1, the higher fitting optimisation of the model is. The values MAE, RMSE, MSE, RMSLE, and MAPE are used to
evaluate modelling error—the smaller the value, the lesser the difference between the predicted and measured
values.
n
yi − yi )2
(
R2 = 1 − ni=1  2 (3)
i=1 yi − y i

n
1   
MAE = y − y′  (4)
n
i=1

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 7

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Model R2 MAE MSE RMSE RMSLE MAPE

LBGM 0.86 3.60 14.92 3.86 0.03 0.03
CATB 0.85 3.61 21.80 4.67 0.05 0.04
Training Dataset GBR 0.83 4.02 22.32 4.72 0.05 0.04
ADAB 0.81 4.20 26.59 5.16 0.05 0.04
XGB 0.81 3.95 26.87 5.18 0.05 0.04
LBGM 0.94 3.29 16.80 4.10 0.04 0.03
CATB 0.89 3.97 29.10 5.39 0.06 0.04
Test Dataset GBR 0.93 3.24 17.82 4.22 0.05 0.03
ADAB 0.89 4.17 28.46 5.33 0.06 0.04
XGB 0.92 3.64 21.86 4.68 0.05 0.04

Table 3.  Summary of initial modelling.


 n
1  
RMSE =  y − y ′ 2 (5)
n
i=1

n
1   2
MSE = y − y′  (6)
n
i=1


 n
1     2
RMSLE =  (log y1 + 1 − log y ′ + 1 (7)
n
i=1

n  
1   y − y ′ 
MAPE =  y  (8)
n
i=1

Results and discussion

Initial modelling. The LBGM, CATB, GBR, ADAB, and XGB algorithms were initially modelled using their
default hyper-parameter settings. Each model’s performance is measured in terms of prediction accuracy and
error rates, i.e., ­R2, MSE, RMSE, MAE, RMSLE, and MAPE. The findings of the initial modelling are summarised
in Table 3 below.
LBGM predicted the compressive strength of concrete with the highest prediction accuracy and the least
prediction errors of all five BML models. The initial modelling of LBMG reached 0.86 and 0.94 for the training
and testing prediction scores, respectively. GBR and XGB models also performed well, with prediction accuracy
of 0.93 and 0.92 on the test dataset. The evaluation metrics in the LGBM model was the lowest in comparison
to other BML models, with an MAE of 3.29, an RMSE of 4.10, and an RMSLE of 0.03 for test dataset. The GBR
model was the second-best model in prediction errors with MAE and RMSE values of 3.24 and 4.22, respectively.
The distribution of predicted results against actual results for all BML models are visualized in Fig. 7, along with
the best fit line for the prediction distribution. The initial modelling suggests a reasonable prediction result;
however, it is further improved by using the RS algorithm, which is discussed in detail in the following section.
In terms of prediction distribution, the LBGM and CATB models have the highest training scores of 0.86 and
0.85, respectively. In contrast, their prediction scores for the test dataset are significantly higher at 0.94 and 0.93.
It suggests that both models concentrated on optimising the test score to get the maximum possible prediction
accuracy. The prediction distribution indicates that the LBGM, GBR, and XBG results are closely spaced along
the best fit lines compared to the CATB and ADAB models.

Model optimisation with RS algorithm. The RS algorithm focuses on the use of random combinations
to optimise the hyperparameters of a model. It measures random combinations of a set of values to optimise
decent outcomes, with the function tested at any number of random combinations in the parameter space. The
chances of discovering the optimal parameter are relatively higher in RS algorithms compared to Grid Search
algorithm due to various search patterns in the model being trained on the optimised parameters without alias-
ing. RS algorithms are best for lower dimensional data as this method takes less time and iterations to find the
right parameter c­ ombination67. Numerous hyperparameters were optimised in this study, including n_estimator,
learning_rate, max_depth, and subsample and min_sample_split. A total of 1000 iteration was performed to
identify the performing model and the optimum hyperparameters for each BML models. Table 4 below shows
the hyperparameters and values used for all the model, before and after optimisation process.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 8

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 7.  Best fit line for prediction distribution (RS model).

Based on the optimised BML models, the GBR model achieved the highest prediction accuracy of 0.96 for the
test dataset followed with LBGM and CATB model with R ­ 2 of 0.95. In comparison, the optimised GBR model
had the lowest prediction errors for test errors, with an MAE of 2.73, an RMSE of 3.40, respectively. For training
dataset, the CATB model recorded lowest prediction error and highest prediction accuracy of 0.89. Table 5 shows
the summary of prediction accuracy and evaluation metrics for the optimised BML models.
The comparison of the training and test datasets for both the initial and optimised BML models is shown in
Fig. 8. In general, the RS algorithm improves prediction accuracy and reduces the modelling error for the train-
ing dataset of all BML models. However, the optimised ADAB model show a minor deficiency compared to the
training results. The overall performance of BML models with RS optimisation shows that the GBR model is the

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 9

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Model LGBM CATB GBR ADAB XGB

n_estimator 100 100 1000 50 100
learning_rate 0.10 0.10 0.03 1.00 0.03
Default Value
max_depth −1 3 6 – 6
subsample 1.00 1.00 0.80 – 1.00
n_estimator 270 90 210 290 100
learning_rate 0.20 0.30 0.15 0.40 0.30
Optimised Value
max_depth −1 2 2 – 6
subsample 1.00 0.80 0.65 – 1.00

Table 4.  Summary of hyperparameter tuned values.

Model R2 MAE MSE RMSE RMSLE MAPE

LBGM 0.88 3.27 16.22 4.03 0.04 0.03
CATB 0.89 3.15 14.85 3.85 0.04 0.03
Training Dataset GBR 0.88 3.26 16.75 4.09 0.04 0.03
ADAB 0.83 4.00 24.50 4.95 0.05 0.04
XGB 0.88 3.23 16.50 4.06 0.04 0.03
LBGM 0.95 2.88 12.79 3.58 0.04 0.03
CATB 0.95 2.98 13.30 3.65 0.04 0.03
Test Dataset GBR 0.96 2.73 11.53 3.40 0.03 0.03
ADAB 0.90 3.98 26.11 5.11 0.05 0.04
XGB 0.94 3.14 15.20 3.90 0.04 0.03

Table 5.  Summary of RS optimised models.

Figure 8.  Comparison between BML and RS optimised models.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 10

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 9.  Best fit line for prediction distribution (RS model).

best performing model with highest prediction accuracy and lowest modelling errors while the LGBM model
are the best model without any optimisations with highest prediction accuracy and lowest modelling errors.
The prediction distributions of the optimised BML models appear to have a similar pattern for both the
training and test datasets, with only a minor difference in prediction scores. The RS algorithms optimise the
BML models to obtain a high prediction accuracy and a low error rate by tuning the hyperparameters for both
the training and test datasets while simultaneously improving model performance. As presented in Fig. 9, the
LBGM, CATB, and GBR all suggest a closed space between best fit and the identity line, demonstrating that the
model’s predictions are highly accurate.

Features importance analysis. The explainability and interpretability of ML models are active areas of
research that seek to understand why and how an ML model predicts output values. Numerous techniques,
­ odels68. The per-
including feature importance analysis (FIA), are frequently used to explain and interpret ML m

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 11

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 10.  Feature importance analysis of BML models.

mutation FIA techniques are model-dependent, which means they evaluate model predictions rather than the
actual data. The explainability and interpretability metrics reveal how well ML model predictions correspond to
physical knowledge. Additionally, it enables the discovery of hidden correlations between targets and features
that are not readily visible in the data by allowing ML models to make correct predictions.
The original dataset is updated for each feature by randomly shuffling the feature values. The model’s evalu-
ation metric for the updated dataset is computed and compared to the original dataset’s evaluation metric. This
procedure is repeated numerous times for each feature to get the mean and standard deviation of the permuta-
tion importance score.
In this research, the permutation FIA was performed in all BML models to understand the influence of each
feature/component of concrete in predicting the compressive strength of concrete. Figure 10 below displays
all the features used in the compressive strength prediction model and their relative importance. ‘Days’ are an
essential feature for all BML models, and SF is the least important feature in GBR, ADAB, and XGB models. It
demonstrates that changes to the day’s value in the dataset substantially affect the concrete compressive strength
results. In contrast, changes in SF value have a considerably low impact on the strength prediction.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 12

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Model R2 MAE MSE RMSE RMSLE MAPE

Extra Trees 0.78 4.17 25.41 5.04 0.05 0.04
Random Forest 0.78 4.17 26.07 5.11 0.05 0.04
K Neighbours 0.72 4.90 35.09 5.92 0.05 0.05
Ridge 0.66 5.19 41.85 6.47 0.06 0.05
Least Angle 0.66 5.22 42.16 6.49 0.06 0.05
Linear 0.65 5.22 42.16 6.49 0.06 0.05
Elastic Net 0.65 5.41 45.79 6.77 0.06 0.05
Huber 0.64 5.30 44.55 6.67 0.06 0.05
Bayesian Ridge 0.64 5.54 47.42 6.89 0.07 0.05
Lasso 0.60 5.59 48.36 6.95 0.07 0.06
Decision Tree 0.59 5.59 45.66 6.76 0.07 0.05
Orthogonal Matching Pursuit 0.59 6.05 56.49 7.52 0.07 0.06
Passive Aggressive 0.25 7.80 96.13 9.80 0.09 0.08
Lasso Least Angle 0.09 9.84 153.55 12.39 0.12 0.10

Table 6.  Summary of comparison between various ML models.

Comparison between various ML algorithms. Subsequently, the initial BML models without opti-
misation was compared to 14 commonly used ML algorithms, including linear regression (LR), decision trees
(DT), random forests (RF), and extra trees (ET), etc. Table 6 shows the summary of prediction accuracy and
the evaluation metrics for 14 comparison ML models. For Table 6, only test dataset values were provided as the
purpose of this section is to make comparison between BML model and other conventional models. Generally,
all comparison models exhibit much lower prediction scores and more significant prediction errors than BML
models. The comparison models show that the ET and RF models were the best performing model with an R ­2
of 0.78. Similarly, both models produced prediction errors, i.e., MAE and RMSE of 4.17 and 5.0, respectively.
Overall, the comparison models demonstrate that the initial BML model outperforms all other machine learn-
ing models.

Conclusion and recommendation

Comparing all 5 BML models, the GBR model has outperformed the LBGM, CATB, ADAB, and XGB models.
The GBR model optimised with RS algorithms achieved the highest prediction accuracy of 0.96 and the least
prediction errors, with an MAE of 2.73, an RMSE of 3.40, and an RMSLE of 0.03. Notably, the RS algorithms
optimisation technique improved the model prediction accuracy and reduced the modelling errors in all 5 BML
models. Simultaneously, the evaluation of 14 commonly used ML models also suggests that the BML models
have superior prediction accuracy and minimum prediction errors. These studies conclude that the optimised
BML models, i.e., the GBR model are the best choice to predict the compressive strength of concrete, mainly for
HPC and concrete with high volume GGBS replacements. For future research, a comparison study between ANN
models with BML models or hyperparameter tuning with different optimisation algorithms, i.e., Grid Search,
can be evaluated and compared with the proposed BML model’s performance.

Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary
information files]. GitHub: https://​github.​com/​vilin​i007/​HPC-​GGBS-​Concr​ete/​blob/​bae42​e3d9f​59743​96117​
6e43a4​ a504c​ 51109​ e9c7/H
​ PC_G
​ GBS.i​ pynb. Google Colab: https://c​ olab.r​ esear​ ch.g​ oogle.c​ om/d
​ rive/1​ fZzZf​ uTKI​
9MvD4​enxCG​iEVB0_​d8p62​Jk?​usp=​shari​ng.

Received: 2 February 2022; Accepted: 18 May 2022

References
1. Chung, K. L., Wang, L., Ghannam, M., Guan, M. & Luo, J. Prediction of concrete compressive strength based on early-age effective
conductivity measurement. J. Build. Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2020.​101998 (2020).
2. Nguyen, K. T., Nguyen, Q. D., Le, T. A., Shin, J. & Lee, K. Analyzing the compressive strength of green fly ash based geopolymer
concrete using experiment and machine learning approaches. Constr. Build. Mater. 247, 118581. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​
ildmat.​2020.​118581 (2020).
3. Gomaa, E., Han, T., ElGawady, M., Huang, J. & Kumar, A. Machine learning to predict properties of fresh and hardened alkali-
activated concrete. Cement Concrete Composites 115(2020), 103863. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cemco​ncomp.​2020.​103863 (2021).
4. Chiew, F. H. Prediction of blast furnace slag concrete compressive strength using artificial neural networks and multiple regression
analysis. Proceedings - 2019 International Conference on Computer and Drone Applications, IConDA 2019, pp. 54–58, 2019, https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1109/​IConD​A47345.​2019.​90349​20.
5. Kang, M. C., Yoo, D. Y. & Gupta, R. Machine learning-based prediction for compressive and flexural strengths of steel fiber-
reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 266, 121117. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2020.​121117 (2021).
6. Han, T., Siddique, A., Khayat, K., Huang, J. & Kumar, A. An ensemble machine learning approach for prediction and optimization
of modulus of elasticity of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 244, 118271. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​
2020.​118271 (2020).

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

7. Singh, P., Khaskil, P. Prediction of compressive strength of green concrete with admixtures using neural networks. 2020 IEEE
International Conference on Computing, Power and Communication Technologies, GUCON 2020, no. cm, pp. 714–717, 2020, https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1109/​GUCON​48875.​2020.​92312​30.
8. Feng, D. C. et al. Machine learning-based compressive strength prediction for concrete: An adaptive boosting approach. Constr.
Build. Mater. 230, 117000. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2019.​117000 (2020).
9. Mousavi, S. M., Aminian, P., Gandomi, A. H., Alavi, A. H. & Bolandi, H. A new predictive model for compressive strength of HPC
using gene expression programming. Adv. Eng. Softw. 45(1), 105–114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​adven​gsoft.​2011.​09.​014 (2012).
10. Ben-Chaabene, W., Flah, M. & Nehdi, M. L. “Machine learning prediction of mechanical properties of concrete: Critical review.
Constr. Build. Mater. 260, 119889. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2020.​119889 (2020).
11. Aliev, K. & Antonelli, D. Proposal of a monitoring system for collaborative robots to predict outages and to assess reliability factors
exploiting machine learning. Appl. Sci. (Switzerland) 11(4), 1–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app11​041621 (2021).
12. Bahaghighat, M., Abedini, F., Xin, Q., Zanjireh, M. M. & Mirjalili, S. Using machine learning and computer vision to estimate the
angular velocity of wind turbines in smart grids remotely. Energy Rep. 7, 8561–8576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​egyr.​2021.​07.​077
(2021).
13. Dangut, M. D., Skaf, Z. & Jennions, I. K. An integrated machine learning model for aircraft components rare failure prognostics
with log-based dataset. ISA Trans. 113, 127–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​ISATRA.​2020.​05.​001 (2021).
14. Moshtaghzadeh, M., Bakhtiari, A., Izadpanahi, E. & Mardanpour, P. Artificial Neural Network for the prediction of fatigue life of
a flexible foldable origami antenna with Kresling pattern. Thin-Walled Struct. 174, 109160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​T WS.​2022.​
109160 (2022).
15. Degtyarev, V. V. & Naser, M. Z. Boosting machines for predicting shear strength of CFS channels with staggered web perforations.
Structures 34, 3391–3403. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2021.​09.​060 (2021).
16. Selvaraj, S. & Sivaraman, S. Prediction model for optimized self-compacting concrete with fly ash using response surface method
based on fuzzy classification. Neural Comput. Appl. 31(5), 1365–1373. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00521-​018-​3575-1 (2019).
17. Castelli, M., Vanneschi, L. & Silva, S. Prediction of high performance concrete strength using Genetic Programming with geometric
semantic genetic operators. Expert Syst. Appl. 40(17), 6856–6862. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eswa.​2013.​06.​037 (2013).
18. Sun, H., Burton, H. V. & Huang, H. Machine learning applications for building structural design and performance assessment:
State-of-the-art review. J. Build. Eng. 33(2020), 101816. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2020.​101816 (2021).
19. Naranjo-Pérez, J., Infantes, M., Fernando Jiménez-Alonso, J. & Sáez, A. A collaborative machine learning-optimization algorithm
to improve the finite element model updating of civil engineering structures. Eng. Struct. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2020.​
111327 (2020).
20. Abuodeh, O. R., Abdalla, J. A. & Hawileh, R. A. Assessment of compressive strength of Ultra-high Performance Concrete using
deep machine learning techniques. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 95, 106552. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2020.​106552 (2020).
21. Khademi, F., Jamal, S. M., Deshpande, N. & Londhe, S. Predicting strength of recycled aggregate concrete using Artificial Neural
Network, Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Multiple Linear Regression. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 5(2), 355–369.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijsbe.​2016.​09.​003 (2016).
22. Yan, K. & Shi, C. Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high strength concrete by support vector machine. Constr. Build.
Mater. 24(8), 1479–1485. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2010.​01.​006 (2010).
23. Azimi-Pour, M., Eskandari-Naddaf, H. & Pakzad, A. Linear and non-linear SVM prediction for fresh properties and compressive
strength of high volume fly ash self-compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 230, 117021. https://d ​ oi.o
​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ onbui​ ldmat.​
2019.​117021 (2020).
24. Seleemah, A. A. A multilayer perceptron for predicting the ultimate shear strength of reinforced concrete beams. J. Civil Eng.
Constr. Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5897/​JCECT​11.​098 (2012).
25. Kaloop, M. R., Kumar, D., Samui, P., Hu, J. W. & Kim, D. Compressive strength prediction of high-performance concrete using
gradient tree boosting machine. Constr. Build. Mater. 264, 120198. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2020.​120198 (2020).
26. Lee, S., Vo, T. P., Thai, H. T., Lee, J. & Patel, V. Strength prediction of concrete-filled steel tubular columns using Categorical Gradi-
ent Boosting algorithm. Eng. Struct. 238, 112109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2021.​112109 (2021).
27. Aslam, F. et al. Applications of gene expression programming for estimating compressive strength of high-strength concrete. Adv.
Civil Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2020/​88505​35 (2020).
28. Lim, C. H., Yoon, Y. S. & Kim, J. H. Genetic algorithm in mix proportioning of high-performance concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 34(3),
409–420. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cemco​nres.​2003.​08.​018 (2004).
29. Yeh, I. C. Modeling of strength of high-performance concrete using artificial neural networks. Cem. Concr. Res. 28(12), 1797–1808.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0008-​8846(98)​00165-3 (1998).
30. Milovancevic, M. et al. Prediction of shear debonding strength of concrete structure with high-performance fiber reinforced
concrete. Structures 33, 4475–4480. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2021.​07.​012 (2021).
31. Kaveh, A., Bakhshpoori, T. & Hamze-Ziabari, S. M. M5’ and mars based prediction models for properties of selfcompacting
concrete containing fly ash. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Eng. 62(2), 281–294. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3311/​PPci.​10799 (2018).
32. Ahmad, A. et al. Prediction of compressive strength of fly ash based concrete using individual and ensemble algorithm. Materials
14(4), 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ma140​40794 (2021).
33. Bui, D. K., Nguyen, T., Chou, J. S., Nguyen-Xuan, H. & Ngo, T. D. A modified firefly algorithm-artificial neural network expert
system for predicting compressive and tensile strength of high-performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 180, 320–333. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2018.​05.​201 (2018).
34. Sargam, Y., Wang, K. & Cho, I. H. Machine learning based prediction model for thermal conductivity of concrete. J. Build. Eng.
34, 101956. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2020.​101956 (2020).
35. Cai, R. et al. Prediction of surface chloride concentration of marine concrete using ensemble machine learning. Cement Concrete
Res. 136, 106164. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cemco​nres.​2020.​106164 (2020).
36. Asteris, P. G., Kolovos, K. G., Douvika, M. G. & Roinos, K. Prediction of self-compacting concrete strength using artificial neural
networks. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 20(sup1), s102–s122. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19648​189.​2016.​12466​93 (2016).
37. Siddique, R., Aggarwal, P. & Aggarwal, Y. Prediction of compressive strength of self-compacting concrete containing bottom ash
using artificial neural networks. Adv. Eng. Softw. 42(10), 780–786. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​adven​gsoft.​2011.​05.​016 (2011).
38. Słoński, M. A comparison of model selection methods for compressive strength prediction of high-performance concrete using
neural networks. Comput. Struct. 88(21–22), 1248–1253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truc.​2010.​07.​003 (2010).
39. Lin, S. S., Shen, S. L., Zhou, A. & Xu, Y. S. Risk assessment and management of excavation system based on fuzzy set theory and
machine learning methods. Autom. Constr. 122, 103490. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​autcon.​2020.​103490 (2021).
40. Xu, H. et al. Identifying diseases that cause psychological trauma and social avoidance by GCN-Xgboost. BMC Bioinf. 21, 2–6.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12859-​020-​03847-1 (2020).
41. Dhananjay, B. & Sivaraman, J. Analysis and classification of heart rate using CatBoost feature ranking model. Biomed. Signal
Process. Control 68, 102610. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​bspc.​2021.​102610 (2021).
42. Kivrak, M., Guldogan, E. & Colak, C. Prediction of death status on the course of treatment in SARS-COV-2 patients with deep
learning and machine learning methods. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 201, 105951. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cmpb.​2021.​
105951 (2021).

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 14

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

43. Farooq, F., Ahmed, W., Akbar, A., Aslam, F. & Alyousef, R. Predictive modeling for sustainable high-performance concrete from
industrial wastes: A comparison and optimization of models using ensemble learners. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 126032. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2021.​126032 (2021).
44. Balf, F. R., Kordkheili, H. M. & Kordkheili, A. M. A new method for predicting the ingredients of self-compacting concrete (SCC)
including fly ash (FA) using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 46(5), 4439–4460. https://d ​ oi.o ​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 13369-​
020-​04927-3 (2021).
45. Nguyen-Sy, T. et al. Predicting the compressive strength of concrete from its compositions and age using the extreme gradient
boosting method. Constr. Build. Mater. 260, 119757. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2020.​119757 (2020).
46. Asteris, P. G. & Kolovos, K. G. Self-compacting concrete strength prediction using surrogate models. Neural Comput. Appl. 31(1),
409–424. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00521-​017-​3007-7 (2019).
47. Zhang, J. et al. Modelling uniaxial compressive strength of lightweight self-compacting concrete using random forest regression.
Constr. Build. Mater. 210, 713–719. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2019.​03.​189 (2019).
48. Yu, Y., Li, W., Li, J. & Nguyen, T. N. A novel optimised self-learning method for compressive strength prediction of high perfor-
mance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 184, 229–247. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2018.​06.​219 (2018).
49. Goliatt, L. & Farage, M. R. C. An extreme learning machine with feature selection for estimating mechanical properties of light-
weight aggregate concretes. 2018 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC 2018 - Proceedings, 2018, https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1109/​CEC.​2018.​84776​73.
50. Ke, G. et al., “LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., vol. 2017-Decem, no.
Nips, pp. 3147–3155 (2017).
51. Hancock, J. T. & Khoshgoftaar, T. M. CatBoost for big data: An interdisciplinary review. J. Big Data https://d ​ oi.o ​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 186/s​ 40537-​
020-​00369-8 (2020).
52. Prokhorenkova, L., Gusev, G., Vorobev, A., Dorogush, A. V. & Gulin, A. Catboost: Unbiased boosting with categorical features.
Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2018, 6638–6648 (2018).
53. Bakouregui, A. S., Mohamed, H. M., Yahia, A. & Benmokrane, B. Explainable extreme gradient boosting tree-based prediction of
load-carrying capacity of FRP-RC columns. Eng. Struct. 245, 112836. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2021.​112836 (2021).
54. Gong, M. et al. Gradient boosting machine for predicting return temperature of district heating system: A case study for residential
buildings in Tianjin. J. Build. Eng. 27, 100950. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2019.​100950 (2020).
55. Pham, B. T. et al. A novel approach for classification of soils based on laboratory tests using Adaboost, Tree and ANN modeling.
Transp. Geotech. 27, 100508. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​trgeo.​2020.​100508 (2021).
56. Liu, Q., Wang, X., Huang, X. & Yin, X. Prediction model of rock mass class using classification and regression tree integrated
AdaBoost algorithm based on TBM driving data. Tunnell. Undergr. Space Technol. 106, 103595. https://d ​ oi.o ​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.t​ ust.2​ 020.​
103595 (2020).
57. Tang, Q., Xia, G., Zhang, X., & Long, F. A customer churn prediction model based on XGBoost and MLP. Proceedings - 2020 Inter-
national Conference on Computer Engineering and Application, ICCEA 2020, pp. 608–612, 2020, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICCEA​
50009.​2020.​00133.
58. Mustika, W. F., Murfi, H., Widyaningsih, Y. Analysis accuracy of XGBoost model for multiclass classification - a case study of
applicant level risk prediction for life insurance,” Proceeding - 2019 5th International Conference on Science in Information Tech-
nology: Embracing Industry 4.0: Towards Innovation in Cyber Physical System, ICSITech 2019, pp. 71–77, 2019, https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1109/​ICSIT​ech46​713.​2019.​89874​74.
59. Wu, D., Guo, P., Wang, P. Malware Detection based on Cascading XGBoost and Cost Sensitive. Proceedings - 2020 International
Conference on Computer Communication and Network Security, CCNS 2020, pp. 201–205, 2020, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​CCNS5​
0731.​2020.​00051.
60. Li, J. & Zhang, R. Dynamic weighting multi factor stock selection strategy based on XGboost machine learning algorithm. Pro-
ceedings of 2018 IEEE international conference of safety produce informatization, IICSPI 2018, pp. 868–872, 2019, https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1109/​IICSPI.​2018.​86904​16.
61. Qu, Y., Lin, Z., Li, H. & Zhang, X. Feature recognition of urban road traffic accidents based on GA-XGBoost in the context of big
data. IEEE Access 7, 170106–170115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2019.​29526​55 (2019).
62. Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proc. ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data. Min. 13,
785–794. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​29396​72.​29397​85 (2016).
63. “Welcome to PyCaret - PyCaret Official.” https://​pycar​et.​gitbo​ok.​io/​docs/ (accessed Apr. 25, 2022).
64. Lasisi, A., Sadiq, M. O., Balogun, I., Tunde-Lawal, A., & Attoh-Okine, N. A boosted tree machine learning alternative to predictive
evaluation of nondestructive concrete compressive strength. Proceedings - 18th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning
and Applications, ICMLA 2019, pp. 321–324, 2019, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICMLA.​2019.​00060.
65. Nguyen, H., Vu, T., Vo, T. P. & Thai, H. T. Efficient machine learning models for prediction of concrete strengths. Constr. Build.
Mater. 266, 120950. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​conbu​ildmat.​2020.​120950 (2021).
66. Sen Fan, R., Li, Y., Ma, T. T. Research and Application of Project Settlement Overdue Prediction Based on XGBOOST Intelligent
Algorithm. iSPEC 2019 - 2019 IEEE Sustainable Power and Energy Conference: Grid Modernization for Energy Revolution, Proceed-
ings, pp. 1213–1216, 2019, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​iSPEC​48194.​2019.​89750​56.
67. Bergstra, J. & Bengio, Y. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 13, 281–305 (2012).
68. Pan, Y. & Zhang, L. Data-driven estimation of building energy consumption with multi-source heterogeneous data. Appl. Energy
268, 114965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2020.​114965 (2020).

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pro Concrete Consult for providing the dataset.

Author contributions
V. R. wrote the main manuscript text and prepared figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​s41598-​022-​12890-2.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to V.R.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 15

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2022

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:9539 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12890-2 16

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

[email protected]