Novel framework predicts concrete strength with probabilistic models, aiding engineers in risk-informed decisions.
Traditional machine learning models for concrete compressive strength prediction provide only single-value estimates without quantifying the probability of meeting design requirements, leaving engineers unable to make risk-informed decisions. This study addresses this critical limitation by developing a novel probabilistic prediction framework that integrates explainable machine learning with Copula-based joint distribution modeling. Using a dataset of 1030 concrete samples with curing ages ranging from 1 to 365 days, we first established an XGBoost 2.1.4 prediction model achieving R2 = 0.9211 (RMSE = 4.51 MPa) on the test set. SHAP 0.49.1 (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis identified curing age (33.3%) and water–cement ratio (28.8%) as the dominant features, together accounting for 62.1% of predictive importance. These two controllable engineering parameters were then selected as core variables for probabilistic modeling. The key innovation lies in integrating Copula-based dependence modeling with explainable machine learning (XGBoost–SHAP) to quantify the compliance probability of concrete strength under specific mix designs and curing conditions, thereby supporting risk-informed quality control decisions. Through systematic comparison of five Copula families (Gaussian, Student t, Clayton, Gumbel, and Frank), we identified optimal dependence structures: Gaussian Copula (ρ = −0.54) for the water–cement ratio–strength relationship and Clayton Copula for the age–strength relationship, revealing asymmetric tail dependence patterns invisible to conventional correlation analysis. The three-dimensional Copula model enables engineers to estimate compliance probability—the likelihood of concrete achieving target strength under specific mix designs and curing conditions. We propose an illustrative three-tier decision rule for construction quality management based on the compliance probability P: P ≥ 0.95 (high-confidence approval), 0.80 ≤ P < 0.95 (warning zone requiring enhanced monitoring), and P < 0.80 (high risk suggesting corrective actions such as mix adjustment or extended curing), noting that these thresholds can be recalibrated to project-specific risk tolerance and local specifications. This framework supports a paradigm shift from reactive “mix-then-test” quality control to proactive “predict-then-decide” construction management, providing quantitative risk assessment tools previously unavailable in deterministic prediction approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: