In recent years, geopolymer has been developed as an alternative to Portland cement (PC) because of the significant carbon dioxide emissions produced by the cement manufacturing industry. A wide range of source binder materials has been used to prepare geopolymers; however, fly ash (FA) is the most used binder material for creating geopolymer concrete due to its low cost, wide availability, and increased potential for geopolymer preparation. In this paper, 247 experimental datasets were obtained from the literature to develop multiscale models to predict fly-ash-based geopolymer mortar compressive strength (CS). In the modeling process, thirteen different input model parameters were considered to estimate the CS of fly-ash-based geopolymer mortar. The collected data contained various mix proportions and different curing ages (1 to 28 days), as well as different curing temperatures. The CS of all types of cementitious composites, including geopolymer mortars, is one of the most important properties; thus, developing a credible model for forecasting CS has become a priority. Therefore, in this study, three different models, namely, linear regression (LR), multinominal logistic regression (MLR), and nonlinear regression (NLR) were developed to predict the CS of geopolymer mortar. The proposed models were then evaluated using different statistical assessments, including the coefficient of determination (R²), root mean squared error (RMSE), scatter index (SI), objective function value (OBJ), and mean absolute error (MAE). It was found that the NLR model performed better than the LR and MLR models. For the NLR model, R², RMSE, SI, and OBJ were 0.933, 4.294 MPa, 0.138, 4.209, respectively. The SI value of NLR was 44 and 41% lower than the LR and MLR models’ SI values, respectively. From the sensitivity analysis result, the most effective parameters for predicting CS of geopolymer mortar were the SiO₂ percentage of the FA and the alkaline liquid-to-binder ratio of the mixture.

Concrete has relatively high compressive strength (resists breaking when squeezed) but significantly lower tensile strength (vulnerable to breaking when pulled apart). The compressive strength is typically controlled by the ratio of water-to-cement when forming the concrete, and tensile strength is increased by additives, typically steel, to create reinforced concrete. In other words, we can say concrete is made up of sand (which is a fine aggregate), ballast (which is a coarse aggregate), cement (which can be referred to as a binder), and water (which is an additive). Highly ductile material engineered cementitious composites (ECC) were developed to address these issues by spreading short polymer fibers randomly throughout a cement-based matrix. It has a high tensile strain capacity of more than 3%, hundreds of times more than conventional concrete. On the other hand, among the other examined qualities, compressive strength (CS) is a critical property. Consequently, developing reliable models to predict an ECC’s compressive strength is crucial for cost, time, and energy savings. It also includes instructions for planning construction projects and calculating the optimal time to remove the formwork. The artificial neural network (ANN), nonlinear model (NLR), linear relationship model (LR), multi-logistic model (MLR), and M5P-tree model were all proposed as alternative models to estimate the CS of ECC mixtures created by fly ash in this research (M5P). To create the models, a large amount of data were gathered and evaluated, totaling roughly 205 mixes. Various mixture proportions, fiber length, diameter, and curing durations were explored as input variables. To test the effectiveness of the suggested models, several statistical evaluations, including determination coefficient (R2), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Scatter Index (SI), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and Objective (OBJ) value, were utilized. Based on the statistical evaluations, the ANN model performed better in forecasting the CS of ECC mixes incorporating fly ash than other models. This model’s RMSE, MAE, OBJ, and R2 values were 4.55 MPa, 3.46 MPa, 4.39 MPa, and 0.98, respectively. A large database presented in this investigation can be used as the bench mark for future mixture proportions of the ECC. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis showed the contribution of each mixture ingredient on the CS of ECC.