4.7 Article

Unboxing machine learning models for concrete strength prediction using XAI

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-47169-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper evaluates the performance of eight popular machine learning models in predicting concrete strength and finds that the XGBoost model outperforms others. By employing the SHAP technique to analyze the XGBoost model, researchers also provide insights for decision-making regarding concrete mix design and construction practices.
Concrete is a cost-effective construction material widely used in various building infrastructure projects. High-performance concrete, characterized by strength and durability, is crucial for structures that must withstand heavy loads and extreme weather conditions. Accurate prediction of concrete strength under different mixtures and loading conditions is essential for optimizing performance, reducing costs, and enhancing safety. Recent advancements in machine learning offer solutions to challenges in structural engineering, including concrete strength prediction. This paper evaluated the performance of eight popular machine learning models, encompassing regression methods such as Linear, Ridge, and LASSO, as well as tree-based models like Decision Trees, Random Forests, XGBoost, SVM, and ANN. The assessment was conducted using a standard dataset comprising 1030 concrete samples. Our experimental results demonstrated that ensemble learning techniques, notably XGBoost, outperformed other algorithms with an R-Square (R2) of 0.91 and a Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of 4.37. Additionally, we employed the SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) technique to analyze the XGBoost model, providing civil engineers with insights to make informed decisions regarding concrete mix design and construction practices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available