2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00603-022-03046-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Closed-Form Equation for Estimating Unconfined Compressive Strength of Granite from Three Non-destructive Tests Using Soft Computing Models

Abstract: The use of three artificial neural network (ANN)-based models for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of granite using three non-destructive test indicators, namely pulse velocity, Schmidt hammer rebound number, and effective porosity, has been investigated in this study. For this purpose, a sum of 274 datasets was compiled and used to train and validate three ANN models including ANN constructed using Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm (ANN-LM), a combination of ANN and particle swarm optimizat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 127 publications
(115 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The performance of optimized ML models was evaluated using multiple statistical metrics such as root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), coefficient of determination R 2 , scatter index (SI), and performance index (PI) (see Table 2). Many researchers utilized these indices to evaluate the predictive performance of different ML models [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. The RMSE measures the average magnitude of the errors between the predicted and actual values, indicating the model's predictive accuracy.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The performance of optimized ML models was evaluated using multiple statistical metrics such as root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), coefficient of determination R 2 , scatter index (SI), and performance index (PI) (see Table 2). Many researchers utilized these indices to evaluate the predictive performance of different ML models [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. The RMSE measures the average magnitude of the errors between the predicted and actual values, indicating the model's predictive accuracy.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The collected and analyzed data were conducted from previous literature studies. The collected data (total datasets of 420) were divided into three groups datasets; training, testing, and validating 18–53 . The training dataset consisted of 280 data points, while the testing and validating datasets comprised 70 data points 54–56 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 3 elaborates on the distribution of the CS ranges 73% of the data have clustered in a range of 20–55 MPa, and 23% of the data have a range of 56–120 MPa. Only 4% was recorded at the very early ages of the concrete 18–52 …”
Section: Statistical Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A. D. Skentou et al, based on artificial neural network, predicted the unconfined compressive strength of granite by using three nondestructive testing indexes: pulse velocity, Schmidt hammer rebound number and effective porosity. Experimental results showed that the performance of the Levenberg-Marquardt artificial neural network designed by the study was superior to the existing prediction model [22]. To solve the design problem of multiple heat recovery technology, M. A. Haghghi et al proposed A new polygeneration model considering parallel and series waste heat recovery, and carried out multi-criteria optimization under four different scenarios by using artificial neural network and multi-objective gray wolf optimization method.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 98%