4.3 Article

A comparative study of machine learning regression models for predicting construction duration

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13467581.2023.2278887

关键词

Construction duration estimation; gradient boosting trees; artificial neural network; machine learning regression model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores the use of machine learning models to forecast construction duration and compares the results of four different models. The findings indicate that the artificial neural network and gradient boosting trees models perform better, with the latter also being more computationally efficient. The research suggests that these models can be utilized to assist construction project managers in adjusting resource allocation.
Over the past few decades, the construction industry has been suffering from project delays. It remains a recognized challenge to accurately predict the actual project's progress, despite the vast amount of field data and scheduling methods available. In this paper, four different machine learning (ML) models including K-nearest neighbor (KNN), support vector regression (SVR), gradient boosting trees (GBT), and artificial neural network (ANN) were used for forecasting the construction duration of work areas. Field data were collected, including progress, workload, labor, weather, planned days, and location, as inputs and construction days as output for each work area to develop the models. A simple and widely used baseline model was used to confirm the accuracy and generalization capability of ML models. The comparison of the results revealed that ANN and GBT models produced significantly superior results. Additionally, the GBT model is substantially more computationally efficient. In conclusion, the GBT model could be successfully and effectively applied to improve the prediction of construction duration. The proposed ML models could be utilized as a decision support tool for construction project managers to adjust construction site resource allocation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据