ArticlePloS one2026
Predicting the uniaxial compressive strength and elasticity modulus of sandstones from physical and mechanical properties using statistical analyses and artificial intelligence-based techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study develops predictive models for the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and elasticity modulus (E) of sandstones by integrating statistical analyses with artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. Comprehensive laboratory tests were performed on 20 sandstone samples from four Iranian formations, measuring key physical (dry unit weight γₐ = 23.34-26.10 kN/m³, porosity nₑ = 2.07-10.16%) and mechanical properties (UCS = 55.46-104.16 MPa, E = 39.86-57.03 GPa). Statistical analyses revealed strong correlations, with dry unit weight showing the highest Pearson correlation to UCS (R = 0.947) and E (R = 0.971), while porosity exhibited significant negative relationships (R = -0.918 and -0.916 respectively). Among the evaluated AI models, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) demonstrated superior predictive capability, achieving the highest accuracy for both UCS and E predictions (e.g., UCS-Hs: R² = 0.992, RMSE = 1.562; E-Hs: R² = 0.947). In contrast, Random Forest (RF) and K-Nearest Neighbors (kNN) models provided acceptable but comparatively lower performance, with their best models attaining R² values of 0.909 and 0.906, respectively. Sensitivity analysis identified Schmidt hammer rebound (H₅) as the most influential predictor (Univariate Regression score = 3406.678), followed by point load index (PLI). The PDH formation demonstrated superior mechanical properties (UCS = 97.21 MPa, E = 54.82 GPa) linked to its high density (γₐ = 25.52-25.99 kN/m³) and low porosity (nₑ = 2.48-4.84%), while the HZD formation showed the weakest performance (UCS = 60.25 MPa) due to high porosity (nₑ = 8.02-10.16%). These findings provide a robust framework for predicting sandstone mechanical properties using non-destructive methods, offering significant advantages for geotechnical applications where direct testing is impractical.
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.