Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Four-layer perceptron approach for strength prediction of UHPC

Joaquín Abellán-García a,b,⇑
a
PhD Candidate of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain
b
Professor of Civil Engineering at Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería Julio Garavito, Bogotá, Colombia

h i g h l i g h t s

A model for predicting the compressive strength of UHPC was developed.

The model considers the inclusion of several SCM as component of UHPC.

The model can be used regardless the maximum size of the aggregate.

VPD and cement content are the most important factors in improving UHPC’s strength.

The model can be used to predict the properties of new mixtures with good accuracy.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research is aimed to develop a four-layer multi-layer-perceptron (MLP) model for predicting the
Received 10 February 2020 compressive strength of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC), regardless of the combination of a
Received in revised form 10 April 2020 wide range of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) or the maximum size of aggregate used.
Accepted 4 May 2020
UHPC is a high-tech type of concrete resulted of the mixture of several constituents. Therefore, the effect
of each component and their interactions on compressive strength is more difficult to understand than in
conventional concrete. A total of 210 own experimental campaign data added to 717 published work
Keywords:
throughout the world data were used for training purposes by using the R-code language. To analyze
UHPC
MLP
the relationships between the UHPC’s components and strength, the Olden algorithm was used. The
Compressive strength interpretation of both the statistical performance metrics and the results of Olden’s sensitivity analysis
Resilient back-propagation algorithm indicated that the proposed model was an efficient approach for predicting the compressive strength
Olden algorithm of UHPC. The trained MLP model can be used for forecasting the compressive strength for a given
Maximum size of aggregate UHPC mixture design in quick time without performing any trial.
SCM Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Over the last twenty years, remarkable advances have taken
place in the research on ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC).
UHPC is a type high-tech concrete that is characterized by its
ultra-high compressive strength, low permeability, and improved
durability [1–8]. However, due to the absence of a coarse aggregate
together with its need of achieving high packing density, UHPC
contents of binder used (usually cement and silica fume) are rela-
tively higher in relation to conventional concrete. The latter
increases its cost and carbon footprint [1,2,9]. Therefore, notwith-
standing the superb performance in strength and durability, UHPC
has not been widely applied in construction primarily because of
its high costs and carbon footprint. According to that, in recent
⇑ Address: PhD Candidate of the Department of Civil Engineering at the
Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Spain.
E-mail address: j.abellang@alumnos.upm.es
years, great efforts have been made in achieving a less expensive
and more sustainable UHPC, by using supplementary cementitious
materials (SCM) as replacement for cement (partial), quartz pow-
der (total) and silica fume (partial or total). Therefore, some indus-
trial by-products have been used as components of UHPC’s binder
[10] such as fly ash (FA), ground granulated blast slag furnace
(GGBSF), recycled glass powder (GP), rice husk ash (RHA) and fluid
catalytic cracking residue (FC3R) as well as other SCM such lime-
stone powder (LP) and metakaolin (MK). Among others, RHA was
analyzed as SCM in UHPC with successful results in strength and
durability due to its high silica content and the internal-curing pro-
cess of the concrete [11]. Blending limestone powder in UHPC’s
binder enhanced the hydration process at the early-age, giving
higher particle packing, density and enhancing mechanical proper-
ties [12]. Besides, nano-CaCO3 as a component of binder was also
investigated [13]. The conclusion of that work showed that com-
pressive strength increased a 17% compared to the UHPC control

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119465
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465
specimens without nano-CaCO3 [13]. On the other hand, Soliman &
Tagnit-Hamou [14] conducted compressive tests on UHPC wherein
fine glass powder (FGP), with a mean particle size (d50) of 3.8 mm
was used as partial substitution of silica fume. They demonstrated
that compressive strength of 235 and 220 MPa could be achieved
when using steam curing and replacing 30% and 50% of SF with
FGP respectively. In another study by the same authors recycled
glass powder was used to take the place of quartz powder as well
as partial substitution of quartz sand, and cement [15,16].
Other studies of UHPC were performed containing FA, SF and
FC3R, a by-product of the crude oil industry [17,18]. Abellan
et al. [1] performed an UHPC mixture with a low silica fume and
cement content by using limestone powder and recycled glass
powder as SCM. In other research the same authors demonstrated
the capacity of FC3R when used as SCM [2]. These investigations
revealed the possibility of partial replacement of cement and silica
fume in UHPC mixes by other SCM, without significantly reducing
its compressive strength.
The key properties of UHPC with containing several SCMs
require to be investigated experimentally due to the unclear com-
bination effects of different materials and dosages being utilized in
the mixture. Besides, most of times laboratory tests are labor-
intensive, time-consuming, and expensive [5]. In order to decrease
the experimental works and mix designs, probabilistic models can
be successfully applied to predict the compressive strength of con-
crete. However, these models cannot be employed when the
approaching problem involves too many independent factors and
the interactions amidst them are either too complex or unknown
to represent [5,6,19]. In the case like the concrete using several
SCM the use of traditional techniques of approach fails to achieve
the expected accuracy and predictability, owing to its large amount
of components [19].
On the other hand, progresses in Artificial Neural Network
(ANN) have had an ever-expanding application for approaching
the real-world problems due to its immense ability to map non-
linear and unknown relationships between input and output data
pairs. Because of the latter, those mathematical procedures had
demonstrated its effectiveness in answering difficult and complex
engineering problems [20].
In the engineering field, ANN models have been employed in
applications like detection of structural damage, water resources
engineering, traffic engineering, structural system identification,
material behavior modeling, concrete mix proportioning and con-
crete strength forecasting [21,22]. In fact, the application of ANN
to forecast mechanical properties of pastes, mortars and concretes
had become one of the most fertile fields in the scientist literature
of civil engineering production [23]. However, until now few inves-
tigations have been conducted on forecasting the performance of
UHPC using neural networks. Among those few researches, Ehsan
Ghafari et al. [6], Taghaddos et al. [24], and Zhang and Zhao [5]
investigations can be highlighted. Yet only one of these investiga-
tions includes other supplementary cementitious material (i.e. fly
ash) in addition to silica fume [5]. Furthermore, only one of the
three considered the addition of quartz flour [6].
The main objective of this research work was to develop a four-
layer (i.e. one input, two hidden and one output) neural network
model for predicting the 28-days compressive strength of UHPC.
The model was designed in such a way that it could consider any
combination of a broad spectrum of SCM, viz., SF, FA, GGBSF, GP,
Table 1
Transforming factors to turn the compressive strength results to 100 mm side cube specimen.
Type of specimen Cube Cube Cube
Dimensions (mm) 150 100 70
Factor to 100 mm cube 1.119 1.000 0.935
RHA, FC3R, MK and LP in addition to mineral powder such as
quartz powder (QP). The model developed was also able to con-
sider form paste (non-aggregate concrete) to a maximum size of
aggregate of 19 mm.
2. Database
2.1. Data collection
Datasets containing dosages and 28-days compressive strength
of UHPC were collected from several international symposiums on
high and ultra-high-performance concrete (including the interna-
tional symposiums held in Kassel [25–28]), PhD thesis, and other
published works. Only those dosages with information of the vir-
tual packing density or/and the mean particle size of all component
were collected, totalizing 717 observations from the scientist liter-
ature. In addition, 210 experimental tests with different combina-
tions of SCM were performed in various laboratories. As a result,
the present investigation has had a total of 927 observations for
the development of the mathematical model.
The values of compressive strength were transformed to cube of
100 mm side by means of transformation factors, owing to differ-
ent specimens shape and dimensions were observed in published
investigations and experimental works [29–32]. The multiplication
transforming factors used are listed in Table 1.
On the one hand, the experimental campaign only dealt with
ASTM Type III HE cement and siliceous sand, in addition to not
including quartz powder in the dosages. On the other hand, the
definitive database, enriched with other researches, included vari-
ous types of cement, different possibilities of aggregate, from
pastes to concrete with coarse aggregate, and even considered
dosages with quartz powder.
2.2. Dealing with the outliers
Before performing regression analyses it was necessary to deal
with outliers, as they can greatly affect the resulting model [33].
Hence, a descriptive statistical analysis was carried out on each
variable to identify outliers [34]. Unusual distributions (skewness),
data entry errors and outliers in the data were detected using
bivariate boxplots. Bivariate boxplots are two-dimensional equiva-
lent of single variable boxplots that are employed to spot inconsis-
tent data and outliers by robust methods, drawing ellipses that lay
out possible disturbing observations [35]. Nevertheless, trusting in
the use of this methodology without a critical analysis of the data
could also be a dangerous practice. Some of the suspicious points
pointed out by bivariate boxplots could be showing the real behav-
ior of the data, while the rest of the observations could just be
clumped together very closely. Fig. 1 depicts the bivariate boxplot
for the pair of variables compressive strength (MPa) and water con-
tent (volume ratio). This graph clearly illustrates an example of the
situation where important data would be lost if all the data marked
as outliers were to be eliminated. In Fig. 1 25% of the dosages con-
taining MK (blue points of the graph) could be considered as out-
liers (red points) when falling out of the ellipse. Having said that,
it is important to highlight that several studies have demonstrated
that the inclusion of MK in a concrete requires more water or
superplasticizer to reach a determined workability, due to its reac-
Cube Cube Cyl. Cyl. Cyl. Cyl.
50 40 50  100 75  150 100  200 150  300
0.962 1.121 1.020 1.020 1.020 1.063
 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465
Fig. 1. Bivariate boxplot for the pair of variables Compressive strength and Water
content.
tive alumina-silicate contain and its amorphous shape [36–39].
Furthermore, the polycarboxylate amount used in UHPC is
restricted because its excess can make the mixtures sticky [40],
making it difficult for the mixture to expulse the entrapped air,
which has a significant negative effect on the strength of the con-
crete. Hence, removing the observations with metakaolin by show-
ing a higher water content outside the ellipse would not be
adequate. Among other similar situations that could be highlighted
are those corresponding to the pairs FC3R content with the water
to total powders ratio and RHA content with the water to binder
ratio.
Once this procedure was completed, 90 observations were elim-
inated from the data base, leaving 837 for training and validation
purposes.
Figs. 2–5 depicts some of the descriptive statistics of the data-
base, after removing the outliers.
2.3. Data normalization
After the outliers were removed from the database; the next
step consisted in data normalization. The input data and output
data generally comprise of different identities either having no or
Fig. 2. Histogram of compressive strength of the dosages contained into the
database.
3
minimum similarities. Preprocessing or normalization of data
eliminates the possibility of neural network bias towards the dif-
ferent identities and scales down all the input and output data.
Since sigmoid function was used as activation function, linear scal-
ing in the range [0, 1] has been used as depicted in Eq. (1).
x  xmin
xnormsigmoid ¼ ð1Þ
xmax  xmin
where xnorm is the normalized value of the variable x, xmax and xmin
are the minimum and maximum values of variable x respectively.
Table 2 shows the range of variation of all variables considered
in the database (including both experimental and collected
dosages) after dealing with the outliers.
3. Experimental investigation
A total of 210 different dosages were manufactured in order to
determine its compressive strength at 28 days without any heat
treatment. Cube specimens of 50 mm side were used to measure
compressive strength according to ASTM C109 [41].
3.1. Materials
The materials used to develop the UHPC were locally available
in Colombia. ASTM Type III HE cement was employed. The HE
cement had a mean particle diameter (d50) of 8 lm and specific
gravity of 3.15. The SF utilized in the concrete complied with ASTM
C-1240 specifications and had d50 of 0.15 lm, and a specific gravity
of 2.20. Silica sand of a specific gravity of 2.65, maximum particle
size (dmax) of 600 lm, and d50 of 165 lm was used as aggregate in
all the experimental mixtures.
Besides cement, silica fume and silica sand (SS), the following
SCM were used as component of binder: locally available fly ash,
ground granulated blast slag furnace, two sizes of recycled glass
powder, rice husk ash, fluid catalytic cracking residue, metakaolin,
and two sizes of limestone powder. Locally available FA with d50 of
30 lm and specific gravity of 2.32 was employed as part of binder
for some mixtures. GGBSF considered in the experimental cam-
paign had d50 of 2.4 lm and specific gravity of 2.95. Rice husk
ash used in the present work was produced by combustion with
a peak temperature about 700 °C. The ash obtained was ground
in a vibrating ball mill for 90 min. After treatment RHA had a d50
of 7.5 lm and a specific gravity of 2.16. FC3R with d50 of 9.5 lm
and specific gravity of 2.76 was also used in some experimental
dosages. Glass powder and glass flour were obtained by grounding
locally available recycled glass with a jet mill to different degrees
of fineness, by applying different grinding speeds. The glass flour
(GF) with d50 of 28 lm and glass powder (GP) with d50 of 7 lm,
both with a specific density of 2.55, were considered. Commer-
cially available MK used in some of the dosages had d50 of 10 lm
and specific gravity of 2.66. Two sizes of commercialized limestone
powder with a specific gravity of 2.73 were used to complete the
list of SCM. LP with d50 of 15 lm and micro-limestone powder with
d50 of 2 lm were considered in some of the dosages. Table 3
depicts the chemical composition of the materials employed in this
research. Fig. 6 shows the particle size distribution (PSD) of the
cement, silica fume, fly ash, RHA, GGBSF, glass powder (GP), glass
flour (GF), FC3R, MK, limestone powder (LP), micro-limestone pow-
der (micro-LP) and silica sand (SS). A polycarboxylate (PCE)-based
HRWR with a specific gravity of 1.07 and solid content of 40%
was employed as a superplasticizer.
The supplementary cementitious materials utilized were stud-
ied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Some of these images
are shown in Fig. 7. Results indicated the lack of porosity of the two
products related to recycled glass, the high porosity of the RHA
4 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465

Fig. 3. Pie chart from data: a) Number of components of binder; b) Cement ASTM types reported; c) Maximum size of aggregate; and d) Type of coarse aggregate when used.

Fig. 4. Boxplot for the component of UHPC in the data base and some relationships such as water-to-binder ratio, water-to-total-powders ratio and virtual packing density.

particle, the spherical shape of the FA and SF particles, and the components of the concrete were determined by the A&Amod curve
small size of the latter. [42] according to Eq. (2).

3.2. Specimens
The experimentally concrete mixtures corresponded to 15
groups of component combinations. Once the combination of
SCM was selected, a three-factor Design of Experiments (DoE) with
14 runs each was established and performed. The first factor of DoE
corresponded to the amount of cement, the second to the amount
of water and the third to the amount of superplasticizer. The other


Dq  Dqmin
PðDÞ ¼
 ð2Þ
Dqmax  Dqmin
where D is the particle size, P(D) is the weight fraction of total solids
that are smaller than D, Dmax and Dmin are the maximum and min-
imum particle sizes, respectively, and q is the Fuller exponent. The
optimal value of q was determined in previous research [4].
 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465 5

Fig. 5. Scatterplot matrix for every pair of variables in the database including the compressive strength of concrete (F28).

Table 2
Range of variation of all variables considered in this research.

C* SF* FA* GGBSF* RGP* RHA* FC3R* MK* LP* W* HRWR* QP* MSAy WB WP A* VPD CSà
xmax 0.503 0.155 0.250 0.247 0.202 0.177 0.091 0.161 0.190 0.364 0.063 0.235 19,000 0.322 0.322 0.694 0.877 214
xmin 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.103 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.124 0.107 0.000 0.581 100
Mean 0.246 0.063 0.016 0.008 0.027 0.004 0.005 0.002 0.025 0.202 0.026 0.026 1724 0.187 0.177 0.364 0.771 143
SD¥ 0.072 0.035 0.043 0.025 0.052 0.018 0.014 0.013 0.043 0.037 0.012 0.051 2498 0.037 0.034 0.130 0.044 23

*Expressed in m3/m3; y expressed in microns; à

Compressive strength expressed in MPa; ¥
Standard deviation.

Table 3
Physical and chemical compositions of cement and supplementary cementitious materials.

C SF FA GGBSF GP GF RHA FC3R MK LP Micro-LP SS

Specific gravity 3.16 2.20 2.32 2.95 2.55 2.55 2.16 2.76 2.66 2.73 2.73 2.65
Loss of ignition, % 2.58 0.60 11.54 0.00 0.80 1.00 4.82 10.61 2.21 42.41 42.21 0.20
SiO2, % 19.42 92.29 50.09 36.93 75.47 72.89 88.59 39.61 52.17 0.90 0.90 99.80
Al2O3, % 4.00 0.59 22.26 16.45 1.09 1.67 0.31 42.47 39.11 0.10 0.10 0.14
CaO, % 64.42 3.89 2.19 33.78 9.02 9.73 0.74 2.85 0.78 55.51 55.51 0.17
MgO, % 1.52 0.26 0.53 3.91 1.97 2.08 0.66 0.07 0.19 0.70 0.70 0.01
SO3, % 1.93 0.07 0.03 2.51 0.00 0.01 0.26 0.62 0.22 0.10 0.10 –
Na2O, % 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.39 11.65 12.54 0.26 0.61 0.24 0.03 0.03 –
K2O, % 0.39 0.54 0.99 0.40 0.75 0.76 2.46 0.06 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.05
TiO2, % 0.38 0.01 1.05 0.57 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.67 1.48 0.00 0.00 –
MnO, % 0.05 0.01 0.01 3.41 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 –
Fe2O3, % 3.61 0.24 9.33 1.24 0.79 0.81 0.29 0.69 1.07 0.05 0.05 0.04

– = not measured items.

3.3. Items of investigation
After each dosage was designed, a 5-liter mortar mixer was uti-
lized to fabricate the concrete. Once the mixing was completed, the
UHPC was cast in molds using a vibrating table for one minute. The
prisms were demolded 24 h after casting and then cured in a mois-
ture room at 20 °C until the day of the test, without any heat treat-
ment applied. For the determination of the compressive strength,
cubes of 50 mm were evaluated. A compression testing machine
with a capacity of 3000 kN was utilized according to ASTM C109
[41]. Three samples were evaluated for checking 28-day compres-
sive strength. The average value of these three being the reported
value to feed the database. The molds and test setup are shown in
Fig. 8.
4. Analytical investigation
4.1. Artificial neural networks
The simplest form of neural network architecture is the percep-
tron, devised by Rosenblatt in 1958 [43]. Perceptron consists of one
neuron with two inputs and one output [44] and is defined as a
four-tuple entity (i.e., sensors that (i) receive inputs and (ii) multi-
6 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465
Fig. 6. Particle size distribution of cement, sand and supplementary cementitious
materials.
ply them by weights, (iii) a function collecting all the weighted
data to produce a measurement on the impact of the observed phe-
nomenon, and (iv) a constant threshold). Ascertaining these
weights to yield a particular output is called ‘‘training”, which is
the procedure that allows the model to learn [45]. Fig. 9 shows
the schematic diagram of perceptron structure.
For more complex applications, multi-layer perceptron (MLP)
are used, which contain one input layer, one output layer, and
one or more hidden layers as shown in Fig. 10. The multilayer per-
ceptron (feed-forward network) has been a commonly used neural
network architecture [19,22,46].
Multi-layer perceptron models are composed of many highly
interconnected processing neurons working together [21]. Each
neuron is fully connected to the other through connection weights
and receives an input signal from neurons connected to it. The suc-
cessive layers of neurons collect input from the previous layers;
the outputs of neurons in each layer are inputs to neurons in the
next layer. To understand the latter it is necessary to analyze the
schematic diagram of the perceptron showed in Fig. 1, where the
vector xi = (x1, x2,. . .,xn) is an input signal applied to the neuron.
As well, a bias is added to the neuron along with inputs. The vector
wi = (w1, w2,. . .,wn) is the weights for each input. The weighted sum
function computes the net input that approaches to a neuron [47].
The weighted sums of the input components are computed by
using Eq. (3) as follows:
Fig. 7. SEM of some supplementary cementitious materials used in research: (a) silica fume; (b) micro-limestone powder; (c) fly ash; (d) RHA; (e) GGBSF; (f) FC3R; (g) glass
powder; and (h) glass flour.
X
n
vj ¼ wij xi þ b ð3Þ
i¼1
where vj is the weighted sum of the jth neuron for the input col-
lected from the preceding layer with n neurons, wij is the weight
between the jth neuron and the ith neuron in the previous layer;
xi represents the output of the ith neuron in the preceding layer
and b is the bias [48].
Once the weighted sums of the input components are com-
puted, the activation function processes this value and ascertains
the neuron output. Some of the most utilized activation functions
are linear, ramp, tanh (hyperbolic tangent), sigmoid functions
and relu (rectified linear unit function) [49]. In this study the sig-
moid function was used as activation function for hidden layers
whereas linear function was used for output layer. The sigmoid
function takes the input, which can have any value between minus
and plus infinite and squashes the output in the range 0–1 [50].
The latter implies that the normalization of the data for the train-
ing of the network must be carried out.
Regarding to the training process, Rumelhart et al. [51] devel-
oped the most commonly used learning algorithm called back-
propagation (BP) for multi-layer perceptron. BP training algorithm
is an iterative gradient designed to minimize the mean square
error between the actual output of multi-layer feed forward neural
network and the real values of response [52]. Latterly other learn-
ing algorithms have been developed, such as the resilient back-
propagation (Rprop) which has two main advantages over back-
propagation: First, training with Rprop is usually faster than train-
ing with back-propagation. Second, Rprop remove the negative
influence of the size of the partial error derivative on the weight
step, as opposed to back-propagation which needs values for the
learning rate (and frequently an optional momentum term). In
consequence only the sign of the derivative is taken into account
to indicate the direction of weight update [52,53]. For further infor-
mation about Rprop refer to [52] and [53].
In this work, the multi-layer perceptron models were trained
using resilient backpropagation as learning algorithm.
4.2. Preparing training and test data set
The obtained data was randomized and divided into training
and test datasets to facilitate training and testing of the multi-
layer perceptron. A total of 628 observations (75% of the data) were
used for training purposes and the remaining 209 (25% of the data)
 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465 7

Fig. 8. Compressive specimen moulds, cubes and test set-up according to ASTM C109 [41].

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of perceptron structure.

set would end up being very small for a neural network validation
(as in our case). In consequence, the validation scores might
change a lot depending on which data points were selected to
use for validation and which were selected for training: that is,
the validation scores might have a high variance regarding the val-
idation division. This would prevent from reliably evaluating of the
model [49].
The best practice in such situations is to utilize k-fold cross-
validation (see Fig. 11). It is based on the division of the available
observations into k partitions, instantiating k identical models,
and training each one on k – 1 partitions while checking the
remaining partition. The validation score for the model employed
is then the average of the k validation scores obtained [49]. In this
research k = 4 was considered.

4.3. MLP architecture design

Fig. 10. Schematic representation of the architecture of a two hidden layer multi-
layer perceptron.
were used for testing of the trained models. Both subsets contained
all the possible components in the concrete.
As well, the training data could be split into a training and a val-
idation set to assess the neural network while keeping adjusting its
parameters (such as the number of neurons in the hidden layers).
Nevertheless, since there are such few data points, the validation
In this research a four-layer perceptron model (i.e. one input,
two hidden and one output layers) was developed using R version
3.5.2 (2018-12-20)[54] by using the neuralnet function [55]. The
selection of hidden layers and hidden layer neurons is a trial and
error process which frequently started by selecting a network with
a minimum number of hidden layers and hidden neurons [19]. A
total of 225 different architectures were tested to achieve that
optimal neural network architecture. In addition, for each of those
architectures 100 different models were computed by varying the
initial weight allocation of the neurons. Hence, a total of 22,500
8 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465

Fig. 11. K-fold validation [49].

 1:50
artificial networks were developed to predict compressive strength di
of UHPC using the 837 observations. The root mean squared error bij ¼ 1  1  ð6Þ
dj
(RMSE) was used as measure of accuracy.
Seventeen input signals grouped into two different classes were The residual packing density considered for each component is
used in the input layer: depicted in Table 4.
Constituents of UHPC expressed in volume ratio. This group
included cement (C), silica fume (SF), fly ash (FA), ground granu- 4.4. Model performance evaluation
lated blast slag furnace (GGBSF), recycled glass powder (GP), rice
husk ash (RHA), fluid catalytic residue (FC3R), metakaolin (MK), The multi-layer perceptron model was trained on the training
limestone powder (LP), water (W), high range water reducer super- data, through the k-fold validation, and then the chosen model
plasticizer (HRWR), quartz powder (QP) and total aggregate (A) goodness was checked on the test set. In the present work eight
which involved from micro sand to coarse aggregate when used. different statistical parameters have been used to measure the
Relationship between component and properties of UHPC, viz., model’s predictive accuracy, viz., mean absolute error (MAE), aver-
maximum size of aggregate (MSA), water to binder ratio (WB), age error (AE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean
water to total powders ratio (WP), and virtual packing density squared error (RMSE), coefficient of efficiency (E), ratio of the root
(VPD) [56–58]. mean square error to the standard deviation of measured data
Virtual packing density VPD is not information frequently pro- (RSR), normalized mean bias error (NMBE) and coefficients of mul-
vided in the scientific papers. In most cases, it had been estimated tiple determination (R2), as indicated in Eqs. (7)–(14) respectively.
based on information provided in the articles such, mean particle 1X n 
ai  b

size (d50) of components and mixture proportions of concrete. Only MAE ¼ ai  ð7Þ
n i¼1
mixtures with enough information to guesstimate the VPD had
been included in the data base. The VPD was guesstimated based
on the compressive packing model theory [56–58]. The general for- 1X n


AE ¼ ai  b
ai ð8Þ
mulae that represents the virtual packing density of a granular mix n i¼1
containing n materials classes, when class i is dominant, is pre-
n 
 
sented in Eq. (4). 100 X ai  b ai 
8  9 MAPE ¼ ð9Þ
<  = n i¼1 jai j
bi 
VPD ¼ Min h  i h i  i ¼ 1;   ; n
P
:1  i1 1  b þ b b 1  1 y  nP  ;
a
j¼iþ1 1  b
b
ij i
yj  vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
j¼1 i ij i b j uP
un
2
j j

ð4Þ u a b ai
ti¼1 i
where: RMSE ¼ ð10Þ
n

VPD: Virtual packing density of an n component polydisperse Pn
2

i¼1 ai b
ai
mix according to compressive packing model theory [57] E¼1 Pn 2
ð11Þ
bi: Residual packing density of a monodisperse fraction having a i¼1 ðai  ai Þ
diameter equal to di vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
di: Diameter of ith class of particles. When i > j, di < dj u RMSE
RSR ¼ u n ð12Þ
aij: Parameter describing the loosening effect exerted by class j t1 P
n
ðai  ai Þ2
on the dominant class i. See Eq. (5). i¼1
bij: Parameter describing the wall effect exerted by class j on the
Pn

dominant class i. See Eq. (6). 1
i¼1 ai  b
ai
yi: Volume fraction of the ith class, related to the total solid NMBEð%Þ ¼ n  100 ð13Þ
ai
volume
Pn
2
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi b
 1:02 i¼1 ai  a i
dj R2 ¼ 1  Pn
2 ð14Þ
aij ¼ 1  1  ð5Þ b
i¼1 a i
di
 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465
Table 4
Residual packing density considered for each component in the estimation of the VPD [56–58].
Residual packing density (b)
C SF FA GGBSF GP
0.553 0.720 0.567 0.567 0.554
*Coarse aggregate.
where: a is the target or experimental value; ā represents the mean
of the target, â is the model’s output and n is the total number of
observations.
MAE is based on the absolute differences between the measured
and the estimated. Zero is the optimal value of MAE; AE represents
the average error. The smaller values of AE, the better performance
of the model [22]; MAPE is a normalized statistic that supplies a
potent way of contrasting the residual error for each data point with
the target value [19]. A good prediction performance of the model
yields a lower value of MAPE; RMSE is one of the most frequently
used error index statistics [59]. RMSE compares the observed values
to the target values and calculates the square root of the average
residual error, pointing out the error in the units (or squared units)
of the constituent of interest. The optimal value of RMSE is zero,
which indicates a perfect fit. However RMSE provides more weigh-
tage to large errors [19]; The Nash Sutcliffe efficiency or coefficient
of efficiency (E) [60] is a ratio of residual error variance to compared
variance in observed data. A E value close to unity indicates perfect
association between the observed and predicted values; RSR was
presented by Moriasi et al. [59]. RSR includes the benefits of error
index statistics and incorporates a normalization factor. In conse-
quence the resulting statistic and reported values can apply to var-
ious constituents. A lower value of RSR points out good prediction.
The NMBE supplies information on the mean bias in the estimations
from a model. A negative NMBE indicates over-prediction and a
positive NMBE indicates under-prediction of the model [61]; Coef-
ficient of determination (R2) compares the accuracy of the model
with the accuracy of a superficial benchmark model wherein the
prediction is the mean of all samples [46]. R2 statistics is dependent
on the linear relationships between the observed and target values
and may sometimes provide biased results when this relationship is
not linear or when the values contain many outliers. For perfect
association between the observed and predicted values, the value
of R2 is unity. A combined use of the performance metrics narrated
above can provide an unbiased estimate for prediction ability of the
neural network models.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Multi-layer perceptron architecture
Choosing the neural model architecture is the first important
step in developing a multi-layer perceptron model that best suits
the problem at hand. Fig. 12 represents the effect of neuron num-
ber in hidden layers on RMSE during the training using k-fold val-
idation. It is important to highlight that Fig. 12 only depicts the
best performance initial weight allocation of the neurons for each
of the tested architectures. For a better understanding, these
results are also presented in Table 5. According to this, k-fold vali-
dation RMSE best performance was achieved for four neurons in
the first hidden layer and two neurons in the second hidden layer,
reaching a minimum RMSE value of 10.53 MPa. Consequently, the
network architecture shown in Fig. 13, was selected.
5.2. Performance evaluation of trained model
The results of the performance evaluation of the selected model
are presented in Table 6.
9
RHA FC3R MK LP QP Sand CA*
0.567 0.551 0.567 0.552 0.567 0.567 0.567
Fig. 12. Variations of RMSE against number of neurons in the first and second
hidden layers.
According to Table 6 performance evaluation indicators have a
similar value in train and test set. The latter indicates the proper
performance of the k-fold validation employed as procedure to
avoid the overfitting of the neural network model [49] during the
training process. The proposed model forecasted the 28-day com-
pressive strength on the test dataset with a MAE value of
8.957 MPa, pointing out that the differences between predicted
and target values of compressive strength were relatively small
for UHPC. The model under predicted the compressive strength
on average by 4.428 MPa, according to the AE value obtained in
the test set. MAPE showed that the predicted compressive strength
deviated on average by 6.381% from target. RMSE, E and RSR statis-
tics were 9.925, 0.763, and 0.487 respectively. The NMBE statistic
for training and testing was evaluated as 3.965% and 3.091%, show-
ing the same sign which pointed out both the consistency and
under-prediction of the model. This could be also observed in
Figs. 14–20, where most of the points fell below the 45-graded line,
indicating the under-predicting of the model.
However, it can be observed that the R2 value was smaller than
those obtained by other authors consulted, who achieved correla-
tion coefficients between 0.96 and 0.98 when predicting UHPC’s
properties using ANN [5,6]. The latter can be explained because
those researchers only used data from their own experimental
work, and, generally, a few SCM. The wide range of data utilized
in this study incorporated some statistical noise into the system,
viz., the use of different types of cement and the characteristics
of the SCM such as physical and chemical properties; the unre-
ported detail of the use of vibration during the pouring of the con-
crete, the different nature and shape of aggregates used in the
database, and the different technology of superplasticizers consid-
ered in the database, among others. Nevertheless a R2 value of 0.81
was achieved in the test set by the proposed model. Moreover,
Fig. 14 clearly depicts that the predicted values were highly close
to the corresponding target values.
In order to demonstrate the validity of the model in different
types of concrete according to the maximum size of the aggregate,
10 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465

Table 5
RMSE against number of neurons in the first and second hidden layers.

Number of neurons in second hidden layer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of 1 12.381 12.114 12.237 12.234 12.288 12.209 12.328 12.346 12.309 12.344 12.269 12.308 12.326 12.305 12.302
neurons in 2 11.277 11.371 11.503 11.268 11.294 11.381 11.256 11.395 11.310 11.239 11.209 11.184 11.176 11.358 11.273
first hidden 3 11.177 11.183 11.136 11.251 11.115 11.343 11.313 11.254 11.330 11.178 11.098 11.127 10.905 11.321 11.313
layer 4 10.764 10.534 10.991 11.254 11.096 11.418 11.238 11.183 11.478 11.565 11.200 11.556 11.544 11.627 11.382
5 11.294 11.160 11.114 11.071 11.438 11.167 11.410 11.374 11.364 11.685 11.833 11.936 11.988 11.915 10.908
6 11.227 11.296 11.449 11.601 11.265 11.812 11.783 11.704 12.005 12.184 12.020 12.430 12.231 12.000 12.436
7 11.239 11.312 11.043 11.777 11.577 12.241 12.190 12.419 12.238 12.450 12.393 12.933 12.688 12.512 13.398
8 11.295 11.446 11.448 11.983 12.068 12.627 12.194 12.878 13.273 12.857 13.120 13.218 13.058 13.936 13.363
9 11.842 11.535 12.138 12.124 12.481 12.837 12.959 12.959 12.900 13.444 13.536 13.546 13.707 14.340 14.452
10 11.393 11.848 12.176 12.485 12.853 12.533 12.383 13.310 13.352 13.687 14.010 14.244 14.110 13.931 14.222
11 12.007 12.131 12.351 12.753 12.953 13.068 13.516 13.587 14.335 14.255 14.388 14.765 15.006 15.037 15.117
12 12.169 12.165 12.123 13.276 12.934 13.262 13.558 14.221 14.323 15.222 14.989 14.874 15.196 15.493 15.426
13 12.637 12.388 13.013 13.552 14.277 14.549 14.449 14.899 14.322 15.288 15.461 15.793 15.318 15.384 15.865
14 13.084 12.950 13.421 13.681 14.247 14.720 14.725 15.512 15.250 15.758 15.285 15.078 15.226 15.539 15.345
15 12.758 12.746 13.916 14.005 14.655 15.188 15.073 15.571 15.454 15.445 15.571 15.516 15.796 15.598 15.559

Fig. 13. Proposed ANN architecture.

Table 6
ANN model performance measures.

Data subset Model performance

MAE AE MAPE RMSE E RSR NMBE R2
Train 8.868 5.662 6.034% 10.534 0.793 0.455 3.965% 0.857
Test 8.958 4.423 6.381% 9.925 0.763 0.487 3.091% 0.810

the evaluation of results has been carried out on the following split
UHPC whose largest aggregate is micro sand with maximum
of the dosages database: size aggregate in the range of 150–600 mm.

UHPC with maximum size aggregate in the range of 800–

UPHC pastes with no aggregate 1,200 mm.
 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465
Fig. 14. Regression plot for all UHPC dosages.
Fig. 15. Regression plot for UHPC pastes.

UHPC with maximum size aggregate in the range of 1,500–
3,000 mm.

UHPC with maximum size aggregate in the range of 4,000–
5,000 mm.

UHPC containing coarse aggregate.
The regression plots showing the prediction of selected model
on the database splits are exhibited at Figs. 15–20. Furthermore,
Table 7 presents a comparative between the coefficients of multi-
ple regression obtained in those divisions. Results demonstrated
that the model had an acceptable accuracy in all rages considered,
but an exceptional performance when dealing with pastes, 800–
1200 mm of maximum size aggregate, and coarse aggregate UHPC,
achieving R2 values of 0.892, 0.961 and 0.911 respectively. On the
other hand, the worst performance occurred when dealing with
11
Fig. 16. Regression plot for UHPC with maximum size of aggregate in the range of
150–600 mm.
Fig. 17. Regression plot for UHPC with maximum size of aggregate in the range of
800–1200 mm.
maximum size aggregate in the range 1500–3000 mm, achieving
R2 value of 0.757.
5.3. Connection weight approach (CWA)
Neural networks models have been usually denominated as
‘‘black box” since they present little explanatory insight into the
contributions of the input signals in the prediction process. Never-
theless, to explore the connection between inputs signals and out-
put Olden et al. [62] presented the Connection Weight Approach
(CWA) thereby assessing the importance of the input variables
on the neural network outcome. This procedure estimates impor-
tance as the summed product of the raw input-hidden and
hidden-output connection weights between each input and output
node. One benefit of this procedure is that the relative contribu-
tions of each connection weight are maintained in both magnitude
12 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465

Fig. 18. Regression plot for UHPC with maximum size of aggregate in the range of Fig. 20. Regression plot for UHPC containing coarse aggregate.
1500–3000 mm.

the components that best fit the properties required in future

Fig. 19. Regression plot for UHPC with maximum size of aggregate in the range of
4000–5000 mm.
and sign. For example, connection weights that switch sign (i.e.,
positive to negative) between the input-hidden to hidden-output
layers would have a canceling effect. The CWA methodology was
employed in this research to assess the importance of every input
variable in compressive strength. These analyzes are very useful to
understand the influence of each of the components of the UHPC
on 28-day compressive strength, as well as to be able to select
research.
The results of the CWA analysis are shown in Fig. 21, wherein it
can be noticed that the most importance positive input was Virtual
Packing Density, in agreement with those studies that justify the
outstanding mechanical properties of UHPC due to its ultra-dense
structure [63–65]. It is also important to highlight that the effect
of silica fume (SF) could appeared to be masked into the effect of
VPD, due to the fact that silica fume content, because its lower size
(see Figs. 8 and 9a), is responsible for enhancing VPD by filling the
gap between the other particles [9]. Moreover, CWA also pointed
out that cement content had the second positive importance in
compressive strength. In relation to the latter, studies had demon-
strated that each kg/m3 of cement provides a compressive strength
of 0.11–0.14 MPa in high-performance concrete [66]. Previous
works by the author [1,2], demonstrated the positive effect of
HRWR on 28-dat compressive strength of UHPC, in agreement with
what was showed in the CWA graph. QP, FA, RHA and LP were also
suggested as have a positive effect on strength, although with a
more limited importance. Positive influence of RHA on compres-
sive strength could be explained by its high siliceous content (as
indicated in Table 3) and its high porosity (see Fig. 9d) which drives
to an internal-curing process of the concrete [11]. CWA indicated
that MSA, volume of aggregate (A) and GGBSF had no significance
for compressive strength. A few importance negative effect were
reported for FC3R, in agreement with a previous experimental
work [2]. Furthermore, CWA analysis suggested that GP appear
to have a narrowed negative effect on compressive strength of
UHPC. It could be explained by its needle shape (see Fig. 9g) which
could prejudice compressive strength of concrete. As expected, the
CWA analysis outcome indicated that water content (W), water to
binder ratio (WB) and water to total powders ratio (WP) had the
most negative importance for the 28-day compressive strength.

Table 7
Coefficients of multiple determination (R2) for database splits.

Data subset Maximum size of UHPC aggregate (mm)

0 (Pastes) 0 (Pastes) 0 (Pastes)
Train 0.890 0.813 0.939 0.773 0.796 0.902
Test 0.892 0.824 0.961 0.757 0.776 0.911
 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465
Fig. 21. Importance of the input variables for compressive strength.
6. Conclusions and future research
In this paper, an accuracy four-layer perceptron was developed
to predict the 28-day compressive strength of UHPC using different
combinations of supplementary cementitious materials viz., silica
fume, fly ash, ground granulated blast slag furnace, glass powder,
rice husk ash, fluid catalytic cracking residue, metakaolin, and lime-
stone powder, in addition to quartz powder. Furthermore, different
range of maximum aggregate were considered in the trained four-
layer perceptron. And in order to avoid overfitting, k-fold validation
with four partitions was employed, thereby leading to higher confi-
dence of the model when predicting on new data. From the obtained
results of this investigation, the following conclusions are drawn:
1) The proposed model based on a wide range of experimental
and previous work data can be very handy for forecasting
the compressive strength of UHPC in quick time. It could
be helpful in the developing of UHPC as decision support
tool, predicting the compressive strength of a particular
mix design. This procedure will considerably decrease the
effort, costs and time to design an UHPC dosage for a cus-
tomized strength without performing multiple trials.
2) The results of the combined use of the performance metrics,
which included MAE, AE, MAPE, RMSE, E, RSR, NMBE, R2,
supplied an unbiased estimate which proved the adequacy
of the proposed four-layer perceptron model.
3) The outcomes of the Olden’s sensitivity CWA analysis sug-
gested consistency with the results of several international
investigations. This reasserted the validity of the proposed
model.
The future work will concentrate on the development of regres-
sion models for other properties of UHPC such as module of elastic-
ity, shrinkage, chloride penetration, and carbonization. Another
direction for future research will be the development of regression
models for the properties derived from the addition of fibers to the
UHPC such as energy adsorption capacity and ductility. In addition
to multi-layer perceptron other artificial intelligence methodolo-
gies such as bootstrapping, random forest, recurrent networks,
among others could be investigated. The results of such studies
would directly benefit the investigation on UHPC.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Joaquín Abellán-García: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
ware, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing
- review & editing.
13
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to APOLO from EAFIT university (Medellín-
Colombia) and OSIRIS from Escuela Colombiana de Ingenieria Julio
Garavito (Bogotá-Colombia) for the servers and computer related
support. Also, to Cementos Argos SA. for donating most of the
materials used in the research described herein and provide the
SEM images of the components. The supply of recycled glass from
Cristaleria Peldar SA, FC3R from Ecopetrol SA, and GGBSF from Ger-
dau SA for this research is highly appreciated. The writers would
also like to acknowledge the support and suggestions of Escuela
Colombiana de Ingeniería Julio Garavito and Polytechnic University
of Madrid (UPM).
Data availability
The data used during the present study and the R-code gener-
ated are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
References
[1] J. Abellán, J. Fernández, N. Torres, A. Núñez, Statistical optimization of ultra-
high-performance glass concrete, ACI Mater. J. 117 (2020) 243–254, https://
doi.org/10.14359/51720292.
[2] Abellán-García, J., Núñez-López, A., Torres-Castellanos, N., Fernández-Gómez,
J., Effect of FC3R on the properties of ultra-high-performance concrete with
recycled glass
Efecto del FC3R en las propiedades del concreto de ultra altas
prestaciones con vidrio reciclado, 86 (2019) 84–92. doi:10.15446/dyna.
v86n211.79596.
[3] Abellan, J., Torres, N., Núñez, A., Fernández, J., Ultra high preformance fiber
reinforced concrete: state of the art, applications and possibilities into the latin
american market, in: XXXVIII Jornadas Sudam. Ing. Estructural, Lima, Peru,
2018.
[4] Abellan, J., Torres, N., Núñez, A., Fernández, J., Influencia del exponente de
Fuller, la relación agua conglomerante y el contenido en policarboxilato en
concretos de muy altas prestaciones, in: IV Congr. Int. Ing. Civ., Havana, Cuba,
2018.
[5] J. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Experimental investigation and prediction of compressive
strength of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) containing
supplementary cementitious materials, Hindawi Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017
(2017) 522–525, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4563164.
[6] E. Ghafari, M. Bandarabadi, H. Costa, E. Júlio, Prediction of fresh and hardened
state properties of UHPC: comparative study of statistical mixture design and
an artificial neural network model, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (2015) 04015017,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001270.
14 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465
[7] ACI. Committe 239, ACI – 239 Committee in Ultra-High Performance Concrete
2018.
[8] J. Abellán-García, A. Núñez-López, N. Torres-Castellanos, J. Fernández-Gómez,
Factorial design of reactive powder concrete containing electric arc slag
furnace and recycled glass powder, Dyna 87 (2020) 42–51, https://doi.org/
10.15446/dyna.v87n213.82655.
[9] W. Meng, V.A. Samaranayake, K.H. Khayat, Factorial design and optimization of
UHPC with lightweight sand, ACI Mater. J. (2018), https://doi.org/10.14359/
51700995.
[10] Abellán, J., Fernández, J., Torres, N., Núñez, A., Development of cost-efficient
UHPC with local materials in Colombia, in: Proc. Hipermat 2020 – 5th Int.
Symp. UHPC Nanotechnol. Constr. Mater., Kassel, Germany, 2020: pp. 97–98.
[11] Viet Thein An, V., Ludwig, H.-M., Proportioning Optimization of UHPC
Containing Rice Husk Ash and Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag, in: M.
Schmidt, E. Fehling, C. Glotzbach, S. Fröhlich, S. Piotrowski (Eds.), 3rd Int.
Symp. UHPC Nanotechnol. Constr. Mater., Kassel Uni, Kassel, Germany, 2012:
pp. 197–205.
[12] W. Li, Z. Huang, T. Zu, C. Shi, W.H. Duan, S.P. Shah, Influence of nanolimestone
on the hydration, mechanical strength, and autogenous shrinkage of ultrahigh-
performance concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (2016) 1–9, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001327.
[13] Huang, Z., Cao, F., ‘‘Effects of Nano-materials on the Performance of UHPC,” 材
料导报B:研究篇. 26 (2012) 136–141.
[14] N.A. Soliman, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Partial substitution of silica fume with fine
glass powder in UHPC: Filling the micro gap, Constr. Build. Mater. 139 (2017)
374–383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.084.
[15] Tagnit-Hamou, A., Soliman, N., Omran, A., ‘‘Green Ultra - High - Performance
Glass Concrete,” First Int. Interact. Symp. UHPC – 2016. (2016).
[16] N.A. Soliman, A. Tagnit-Hamou, Using glass sand as an alternative for quartz
sand in UHPC, Constr. Build. Mater. 145 (2017) 243–252, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.187.
[17] Camacho, E., López, J.Á., Serna, P., ‘‘Definition of three levels of performance for
UHPFRC-VHPFRC with available materials, in Proceedings of Hipermat 2012,”
in: M. Schmidt, E. Fehling, C. Glotzbach, S. Fröhlich, S. Piotrowski (Eds.), 3rd Int.
Symp. UHPC Nanotechnol. Constr. Mater., Kassel Uni, Kassel, Germany, 2012:
pp. 249–256.
[18] Camacho Torregrosa, E., ‘‘Dosage optimization and bolted connections for
UHPFRC ties,” Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain, 2013.
[19] V. Chandwani, V. Agrawal, R. Nagar, Modeling slump of ready mix concrete
using genetic algorithms assisted training of Artificial Neural Networks, Expert
Syst. Appl. 42 (2015) 885–893, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.08.048.
[20] A. Khashman, P. Akpinar, Science direct non-destructive prediction of concrete
compressive strength using neural networks prediction of concrete
compressive strength using neural networks, Procedia Comput. Sci. 108
(2017) 2358–2362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.039.
[21] H. Adeli, Neural networks in civil engineering: 1989–2000, Comput. Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 16 (2001) 126–142.
[22] M. Aderaw, S. Muse, Z.C. Abiero, Artificial neural network based modelling
approach for strength prediction of concrete incorporating agricultural and
construction wastes, Constr. Build. Mater. 190 (2018) 517–525, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.097.
[23] V. Chandwani, R. Nagar, Applications of artificial neural networks in modeling
compressive strength of concrete: a state of the art review, Int. J. Curr. Eng.
Technol. 4 (2014) 2949–2956.
[24] Taghaddos, H., Mahmoudzadeh, F., Pourmoghaddam, A., Shekarchizadeh, M.,
Prediction of compressive strength behaviour in RPC with applying an
Adaptive Network-Based Fuzzy Interface System, in: Proc. Int. Symp. Ultra
High Perform. Concr., Kassel, Alemania, 2004.
[25] M. Schmidt, E. Fehling, C. Geisenhanslükem (Eds.), Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete, University of
Kassel, Germany, Kassel, 2004.
[26] Fehling, E., Schmidt, C., Stüwald, S., eds., Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on Ultra High Performance Concrete, (2008).
[27] Schmidt, M., Fehling, E., Glotzbach, C., Fröhlich, S., Piotrowski, S., eds.,
Proceedings of Hipermat 2012 3rd International Symposium on UHPC and
Nanotechnology for High Performance Construction Materials, (2012).
[28] Fehling, E., Middendorf, B., Thiemicke, J., eds., Proceedings of Hipermat 2016
4th International Symposium on UHPC and Nanotechnology for High
Performance Construction Materials, University of Kassel, Germany, Kassel,
Germany, 2016.
[29] Camacho Torregrosa, E., Dosage optimization and bolted connections for
UHPFRC ties, 2013.
[30] Skazlic, M., Bjegovic, D., Serdar, M., Influence of test specimens geometry on
compressive strength of ultra-high performance concrete., in: Proc. 2nd Int.
Symp. Ultra High Perform. Concr. Kassel, Ger., 2008: pp. 295–301.
[31] Naaman, A.E., Wille, K., Some correlation between hihg packing density, ultra-
high performance, flow hability, and fiber reinforcement of a concrete matrix,
in: Bac2010, Congr. Ibêrico Sobre Betão Auto-Compactável, 2010.
[32] Graybeal, B., Davis, M., Cylinder or Cube : Strength Testing of 80 to 200 Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete Cylinder or Cube : Strength Testing of 80 to 200 MPa (11 .
6 to 29 ksi) Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, ACI Mater. J.
105 (2014) 603–609.
[33] A. Atkinson, M. Riani, Robust Diagnostic Regression Analysis, Springer, US,
New York, 2000.
[34] W.K. Härdle, L. Simar, Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Springer-
Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 2012.
[35] Everitt, B., Hothorn, T., MVA: An Introduction to Applied Multivariate Analysis
with R, (2015).
[36] A. Arizzi, G. Cultrone, Comparing the pozzolanic activity of aerial lime mortars
made with metakaolin and fluid catalytic cracking catalyst residue: a
petrographic and physical-mechanical study, Constr. Build. Mater. 184
(2018) 382–390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.002.
[37] Torres Castellanos, N., Estudio en estado fresco y endurecido de concretos
adicionados con catalizados de craqueo catalítico usado (FCC), Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, 2014.
[38] Li, Z., Rangaraju, P.R., Development of UHPC Using Ternary Blends of Ultra-
Fine Class F Fly Ash , Meta-kaolin and Portland Cement, (2016) 1–12.
doi:10.21838/uhpc.2016.64.
[39] Ferdosian, I., Camões, A., Ribeiro, M., ‘‘High-volume fly ash paste for developing
ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC),” Cienc. e Tecnol. Dos Mater. 29
(2017) e157–e161. doi:10.1016/j.ctmat.2016.10.001.
[40] Ghafari, E., Costa, H., Júlio, E., Portugal, A., Durães, L., Enhanced Durability of
Ultra High Performance Concrete by Incorporating Supplementary
Cementitious Materials, Second Int. Conf. Microestructural-Related Durab.
Cem. Compos. (2012) 11–13.
[41] ASTM, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement
Mortars (Using 2-in . or [ 50-mm ] Cube Specimens),” Am. Soc. Test. Mater. C-
109/C109M. (2010) 1–9. doi:10.1520/C0109.
[42] Funk, J.E., Dinger, D.R., ‘‘Predictive Process Control of Crowded Particulate
Suspensions. Applied to Ceramic Manufacturing,” Springer Science, New York,
1994. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-3118-0.
[43] F. Rosenblatt, The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage
and orgnization in the brain, Cornerr Aeronaut. Lab. 65 (1958) 386–408.
[44] Ghafari, E., Al., Optimization of UHPC by Adding Nanomaterials, in Proceedings
of Hipermat 2012, in: 3rd Int. Symp. UHPC Nanotechnol. Constr. Mater., Kassel
Uni, Kassel, Alemania, 2012: pp. 71–78.
[45] Estebon, M.D., Perceptrons : An Associative Learning Network by, Virginia
Tech. (1997).
[46] S. Gupta, Using Artificial Neural Network to Predict the Compressive Strength
of Concrete containing Nano-silica, Civ. Eng. Archit. 1 (2013) 96–102, https://
doi.org/10.13189/cea.2013.010306.
[47] J.A. Anderson, Cognitive and psychological computation with neural models,
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 13 (1983) 799–816.
[48] S.D. Bharathi, R. Manju, J. Premalatha, Prediction of compressive strength for
self- compacting concrete (SCC) using artificial intelligence and regression
analysis, Int. J. ChemTech Res. 10 (2017) 263–275.
[49] Chollet, F., Allaire, J.J., Deep Learning with R, Manning Publications Co., New
Jersey, 2018
[50] Demir, F., Prediction of elastic modulus of normal and high strength concrete
by artificial neural networks, 22 (2008) 1428–1435. doi:10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2007.04.004.
[51] Rumelhart, D., Hinton, G., Williams, R., Learning internal representations by
error propagation, in: D. Rumelhart, J. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel Distrib.
Process. Explor. Microstruct. Cogn., 1986: pp. 318–362.
[52] H.M. Mushgil, H.A. Alani, L.E. George, Comparison between resilient and
standard back propagation algorithms efficiency in pattern recognition, Int. J.
Sci. Eng. Res. 6 (2015) 773–778.
[53] Prasad, N., Singh, R., Lal, S.P., Comparison of back propagation and resilient
propagation algorithm for spam classification, Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Intell.
Model. Simul. (2013) 29–34. doi:10.1109/CIMSim.2013.14.
[54] R. Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing” 2018
Vienna, Austria.
[55] Günther, F., Fritsch, S., neuralnet: Training of Neural Networks, R J. 2 (2010)
30–38. doi:10.1109/SP.2010.25.
[56] F. de Larrard, T. Sedran, Optimization of ultra-high-performance concrete by
the use of a packing model, Cem. Concr. Res. 24 (1994) 997–1009, https://doi.
org/10.1016/0008-8846(94)90022-1.
[57] De Larrard, F., Concrete mixture proportioning: a scientific approach., in: Mod.
Concr. Technol. Ser., E&FN SPON, 1999.
[58] F. De Larrard, T. Sedran, Mixture-proportioning of high-performance concrete,
Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (2002) 1699–1704, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846
(02)00861-X.
[59] D.N. Moriasi, J.G. Arnold, M.W. Van Liew, R.L. Bingner, R.D. Harmel, T.L. Veith,
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in
watershed simulations, Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 50 (2007) 885–900.
[60] Nash, E., Sutcliffe, V., RIVER FLOW FORECASTING THROUGH CONCEPTUAL
MODELS. PART I- A DISCUSSION OF PRINCIPLES *, J. Hydrol. 10 (1970) 282–290.
[61] S. Srinivasulu, A. Jain, A comparative analysis of training methods for artificial
neural network rainfall – runoff models, Appl. Soft Comput. 6 (2006) 295–306,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2005.02.002.
[62] J.D. Olden, M.K. Joy, R.G. Death, An accurate comparison of methods for
quantifying variable importance in artificial neural networks using simulated
data, Ecol. Modell. 178 (2004) 389–397, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2004.03.013.
[63] E. Ghafari, H. Costa, E. Nuno, B. Santos, RSM-based model to predict the
performance of self-compacting UHPC reinforced with hybrid steel micro-
fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 375–383, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2014.05.064.
[64] S. Abbas, M.L. Nehdi, M.A. Saleem, Ultra-High Performance Concrete:
Mechanical Performance, durability, Sustainability and Implementation
Challenges, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 10 (2016) 271–295, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40069-016-0157-4.
 J. Abellán-García / Construction and Building Materials 256 (2020) 119465 15

[65] Schmidt, C., Schmidt, M., ‘‘Whitetopping of Asphalt and Concrete Pavements [66] Zhang, J., Zhao, Y., Prediction of compressive strength of ultra-high
with thin layers of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete - Construction and performance concrete (UHPC) containing supplementary cementitious
economic efficiency,” in: Proc. Hipermat 2012 - 3rd Int. Symp. UHPC materials, Proc. - 2017 Int. Conf. Smart Grid Electr. Autom. ICSGEA 2017.
Nanotechnol. Constr. Mater., Kassel, Germany, 2012. 2017-Janua (2017) 522–525. doi:10.1109/ICSGEA.2017.150.