ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning-driven optimization of compressive and tensile strength in concrete with GGBS, eggshell powder, and waste glass powder.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Innovative sustainable concrete with waste glass materials: an explainable machine learning for compressive strength prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the combined use of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), Waste Glass Powder (WGP), and Eggshell Powder (ESP) as sustainable partial replacements in concrete, with optimization guided by machine learning (ML) models. The novelty lies in integrating non-traditional waste materials with ML-driven mix design to simultaneously improve compressive and tensile strength while promoting sustainability. Experimental results showed that the optimized concrete mix, containing 20% GGBS, 4% ESP, and 10% WGP, attained a compressive strength of 24.7 MPa and a split tensile strength of 2.77 MPa, surpassing the control mix (20.4 MPa and 2.33 MPa, respectively). The compressive strength exceeds the minimum requirement of 20.7 MPa (3,000 psi) specified by the International Building Code (IBC), making it suitable for general structural applications, while acknowledging that higher-strength or severe exposure conditions may require adjustments. Among the evaluated ML models, Gradient Boosting provided the most accurate predictions, achieving test R² values of 0.937 and 0.906 for compressive and tensile strength, respectively, with low RMSE values (0.569 MPa and 0.073 MPa). This validates the model's predictive reliability for sustainable mix optimization. Limitations of the study include the absence of microstructural characterization and durability assessments, which are recommended for future research. Overall, the findings establish a framework for applying ML in the design of sustainable concrete mixtures.
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.