ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Prediction of Strength and CBR Characteristics of Chemically Stabilized Coal Gangue: ANN and Random Forest Tree Approach.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainable engineering of fiber-reinforced geopolymer-treated low plasticity clay linking geomechanics and microstructure through support vector machines.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sustainable Soil Reinforcement by Maximizing Geotechnical Performance with Rice Husk Ash in Subgrade Layers.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Machine learning approaches for resilient modulus modeling of cement-stabilized magnetite and hematite iron ore tailings.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Study on the Reactivity Activation of Coal Gangue for Efficient Utilization.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coal mining waste in the form of coal gangue (CG) was established recently as a potential fill material in earthworks. To ascertain this potential, this study forecasts the strength and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) characteristics of chemically stabilized CG by deploying two widely used artificial intelligence approaches, i.e., artificial neural network (ANN) and random forest (RF) regression. In this research work, varied dosage levels of lime (2, 4, and 6%) and gypsum (0.5, 1, and 1.5%) were employed for determining the unconfined compression strength (UCS) and CBR of stabilized CG mixes. An experimental study comprising 384 datasets was conducted and the resulting database was used to develop the ANN and RF regression models. Lime content, gypsum dosage, and 28 d curing period were considered as three input attributes in obtaining three outputs (i.e., UCS, unsoaked CBR, and soaked CBR). While modelling with the ANN technique, different algorithms, hidden layers, and the number of neurons were studied while selecting the optimum model. In the case of RF regression modelling, optimal grid comprising maximal depth of tree, number of trees, confidence, random splits, enabled parallel execution, and guess subset ratio were investigated, alongside the variable number of folds, to obtain the best model. The optimum models obtained using the ANN approach manifested relatively better performance in terms of correlation coefficient values, equaling 0.993, 0.995, and 0.997 for UCS, unsoaked CBR and soaked CBR, respectively. Additionally, the MAE values were observed as 45.98 kPa, 1.41%, and 1.18% for UCS, unsoaked CBR, and soaked CBR, respectively. The models were also validated using 2-stage validation processes. In the first stage of validation of the model (using unseen 30% of the data), it was revealed that reliable performance of the models was attained, whereas in the second stage (parametric analysis), results were achieved which are corroborated with those in existing literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.