The main objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the performance of different machine learning (ML) algorithms, namely, Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Extreme Learning Machine (ELM), and Boosting Trees (Boosted) algorithms, considering the influence of various training to testing ratios in predicting the soil shear strength, one of the most critical geotechnical engineering properties in civil engineering design and construction. For this aim, a database of 538 soil samples collected from the Long Phu 1 power plant project, Vietnam, was utilized to generate the datasets for the modeling process. Different ratios (i.e., 10/90, 20/80, 30/70, 40/60, 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 80/20, and 90/10) were used to divide the datasets into the training and testing datasets for the performance assessment of models. Popular statistical indicators, such as Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and Correlation Coefficient (R), were employed to evaluate the predictive capability of the models under different training and testing ratios. Besides, Monte Carlo simulation was simultaneously carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed models, taking into account the random sampling effect. The results showed that although all three ML models performed well, the ANN was the most accurate and statistically stable model after 1000 Monte Carlo simulations (Mean R=0.9348) compared with other models such as Boosted (Mean R=0.9192) and ELM (Mean R=0.8703). Investigation on the performance of the models showed that the predictive capability of the ML models was greatly affected by the training/testing ratios, where the 70/30 one presented the best performance of the models. Concisely, the results presented herein showed an effective manner in selecting the appropriate ratios of datasets and the best ML model to predict the soil shear strength accurately, which would be helpful in the design and engineering phases of construction projects.

Geopolymer concrete (GPC) has been used as a partial replacement of Portland cement concrete (PCC) in various construction applications. In this paper, two artificial intelligence approaches, namely adaptive neuro fuzzy inference (ANFIS) and artificial neural network (ANN), were used to predict the compressive strength of GPC, where coarse and fine waste steel slag were used as aggregates. The prepared mixtures contained fly ash, sodium hydroxide in solid state, sodium silicate solution, coarse and fine steel slag aggregates as well as water, in which four variables (fly ash, sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate solution, and water) were used as input parameters for modeling. A total number of 210 samples were prepared with target-specified compressive strength at standard age of 28 days of 25, 35, and 45 MPa. Such values were obtained and used as targets for the two AI prediction tools. Evaluation of the model’s performance was achieved via criteria such as mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R²). The results showed that both ANN and ANFIS models have strong potential for predicting the compressive strength of GPC but ANFIS (MAE = 1.655 MPa, RMSE = 2.265 MPa, and R² = 0.879) is better than ANN (MAE = 1.989 MPa, RMSE = 2.423 MPa, and R² = 0.851). Sensitivity analysis was then carried out, and it was found that reducing one input parameter could only make a small change to the prediction performance.

This study aims to analyze the sensitivity and robustness of two Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques, namely Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) with five different kernels (Matern32, Matern52, Exponential, Squared Exponential, and Rational Quadratic) and an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) using a Monte Carlo simulation for prediction of High-Performance Concrete (HPC) compressive strength. To this purpose, 1030 samples were collected, including eight input parameters (contents of cement, blast furnace slag, fly ash, water, superplasticizer, coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, and concrete age) and an output parameter (the compressive strength) to generate the training and testing datasets. The proposed AI models were validated using several standard criteria, namely coefficient of determination (R²), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). To analyze the sensitivity and robustness of the models, Monte Carlo simulations were performed with 500 runs. The results showed that the GPR using the Matern32 kernel function outperforms others. In addition, the sensitivity analysis showed that the content of cement and the testing age of the HPC were the most sensitive and important factors for the prediction of HPC compressive strength. In short, this study might help in selecting suitable AI models and appropriate input parameters for accurate and quick estimation of the HPC compressive strength.

Geopolymer concrete (GPC) is applied successfully in the construction of civil engineering structures. This outcome confirmed that GPC can be used as an alternative material to conventional ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPC). Recent investigations were attempted to incorporate recycled aggregates into GPC to reduce the use of natural materials such as stone and sand. However, traditional methodology used to predict compressive strength and to find out an optimum mix for GPC is yet to be formulated, especially in cases of GPC using by-products as aggregates. In this study, we propose novel hybrid artificial intelligence (AI) approaches, namely a particle swarm optimization (PSO)-based adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (PSOANFIS) and a genetic algorithm (GA)-based adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (GAANFIS) to predict the 28-day compressive strength of GPC containing 100% waste slag aggregates. To construct and validate these models, 21 different mixes with 210 specimens were casted and tested. Three input parameters were used to predict the tested compressive strength of GPC, i.e., the sodium solution (NaOH) concentration (varied from 10 to 14 M), the mass ratio of alkaline activation solution to fly ash (AAS/FA), ranging from 0.4 to 0.5, and the mass ratio of sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃) to sodium hydroxide solution (SS/SH) which was varied from 2 to 3. The compressive strength of the fabricated GPC was used as output parameter for the prediction models. Validation of the models was done using several statistical criteria such as mean absolute error (MAE), root-mean-square error (RMSE), and correlation coefficient (R). The results show that the PSOANFIS and GAANFIS models have strong potential for predicting the 28-day compressive strength of GPC, but the PSOANFIS (MAE = 1.847 MPa, RMSE = 2.251 MPa, and R = 0.934) was slightly better than the GAANFIS (MAE = 2.115 MPa, RMSE = 2.531 MPa, and R = 0.927). This study will help in reducing the time and cost for the implementation of laboratory experiments in designing the optimum proportions of GPC.

Risk of flash floods is currently an important problem in many parts of Vietnam. In this study, we used four machine-learning methods, namely Kernel Logistic Regression (KLR), Radial Basis Function Classifier (RBFC), Multinomial Naïve Bayes (NBM), and Logistic Model Tree (LMT) to generate flash flood susceptibility maps at the minor part of Nghe An province of the Center region (Vietnam) where recurrent flood problems are being experienced. Performance of these four methods was evaluated to select the best method for flash flood susceptibility mapping. In the model studies, ten flash flood conditioning factors, namely soil, slope, curvature, river density, flow direction, distance from rivers, elevation, aspect, land use, and geology, were chosen based on topography and geo-environmental conditions of the site. For the validation of models, the area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), Area Under Curve (AUC), and various statistical indices were used. The results indicated that performance of all the models is good for generating flash flood susceptibility maps (AUC = 0.983–0.988). However, performance of LMT model is the best among the four methods (LMT: AUC = 0.988; KLR: AUC = 0.985; RBFC: AUC = 0.984; and NBM: AUC = 0.983). The present study would be useful for the construction of accurate flash flood susceptibility maps with the objectives of identifying flood-susceptible areas/zones for proper flash flood risk management.