ArticleScientific reports2025
Innovative approaches for predicting the elastic modulus and tensile strength of green concrete using soft computing methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, interpretable and semi-interpretable soft computing techniques, including Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH), Gene Expression Programming (GEP), and Response Surface Methodology (RSM), were employed to develop predictive relationships for estimating the elastic modulus (E) and splitting tensile strength (STS) of concrete containing waste foundry sand (WFS). A sensitivity analysis was subsequently conducted to evaluate the influence of various parameters on these mechanical properties. The input variables considered were the ratio of waste foundry sand to cement (WFS/C), the ratio of waste foundry sand to fine aggregate (WFS/FA), the ratio of fine aggregate to total aggregate (FA/TA), the ratio of water to cement (W/C), the ratio of coarse aggregate to cement (CA/C), the ratio of superplasticizer to cement (1000SP/C) and the age of the sample. The results revealed that the GMDH model achieved the highest correlation coefficient (R) among all methods in predicting STS, exhibiting the lowest root mean square error (RMSE = 0.533) and mean absolute error (MAE = 0.434). Thus, the GMDH model demonstrated superior performance in predicting STS based on all statistical indicators. For predicting E, the RSM method provided the most accurate results, with the highest R = 0.978 and the lowest errors, RMSE = 1.372 and MAE = 1.088. Sensitivity analysis indicated that CA/C had the most significant effect on STS, while W/C had the greatest influence on E. Other parameters, WFS/C, CA/C, and FA/TA, showed relatively minor impacts on E.
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.