Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2025

Production and Analysis of Sporosarcina pasteurii Biocement Bricks Using Custom 3D-Printed Molds for Unconfined Compression Tests
Published on: March 7, 2025
Decision tree models for the estimation of geo-polymer concrete compressive strength
Ji Zhou1, Zhanlin Su2, Shahab Hosseini3
1College of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Engineering, Yongzhou 425199, China.
Abstract:
The green concretes industry benefits from utilizing gel to replace parts of the cement in concretes. However, measuring the compressive strength of geo-polymer concretes (CSGPoC) needs a significant amount of work and expenditure. Therefore, the best idea is predicting CSGPoC with a high level of accuracy. To do this, the base learner and super learner machine learning models were proposed in this study to anticipate CSGPoC. The decision tree (DT) is applied as base learner, and the random forest and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) techniques are used as super learner system. In this regard, a database was provided involving 259 CSGPoC data samples, of which four-fifths of is considered for the training model and one-fifth is selected for the testing models. The values of fly ash, ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), Na2SiO3, NaOH, fine aggregate, gravel 4/10 mm, gravel 10/20 mm, water/solids ratio, and NaOH molarity were considered as input of the models to estimate CSGPoC. To evaluate the reliability and performance of the decision tree (DT), XGBoost, and random forest (RF) models, 12 performance evaluation metrics were determined. Based on the obtained results, the highest degree of accuracy is achieved by the XGBoost model with mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.073, mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 5.547, Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) of 0.981, correlation coefficient (R) of 0.991, R2 of 0.982, root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.458, Willmott's index (WI) of 0.795, weighted mean absolute percentage error (WMAPE) of 0.046, Bias of 2.073, square index (SI) of 0.054, p of 0.027, mean relative error (MRE) of -0.014, and a20 of 0.983 for the training model and MAE of 2.06, MAPE of 6.553, NS of 0.985, R of 0.993, R2 of 0.986, RMSE of 2.307, WI of 0.818, WMAPE of 0.05, Bias of 2.06, SI of 0.056, p of 0.028, MRE of -0.015, and a20 of 0.949 for the testing model. By importing the testing set into trained models, values of 0.8969, 0.9857, and 0.9424 for R2 were obtained for DT, XGBoost, and RF, respectively, which show the superiority of the XGBoost model in CSGPoC estimation. In conclusion, the XGBoost model is capable of more accurately predicting CSGPoC than DT and RF models.
Related Concept Videos
Strength of Cement
For compressive strength tests, ASTM C 109-05 standards prescribe a cement-sand mix ratio of 1:2.75 and a water/cement ratio of 0.485 for making 2-inch cubes. These cubes are mixed, cast, and cured in saturated lime water at 23°C until testing. Flexural strength testing, outlined in...
Elasticity in Concrete
Relation Between Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength of Concrete
Behavior of Concrete Under Compressive Load
As the concrete specimen fractures under...
Non-destructive Tests for Concrete Strength
Tensile Strength Considerations of Concrete
The dimensions and shape of a concrete specimen...

