PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 29, 2026Applied Sciences0 citationsOpen Access

Multidirectional Ultrasound Propagation Velocity as a Predictor of Open Porosity and Water Absorption in Volcanic Rocks: Traditional Regression and Machine Learning

View Full Paper
JVJosé A. ValidoJCJosé M. CáceresLSL. M. O. Sousa

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate ultrasound propagation velocity as a predictor for open porosity and water absorption in volcanic rocks.
  • Measured ultrasound velocity in multiple orientations under dry and saturated conditions.
  • Utilized univariate and multivariable regression analyses, and machine learning techniques.
  • Implemented lithology-stratified 5-fold cross-validation for model comparison.
  • Univariate models showed moderate predictive capability for open porosity (R2≈0.506 to 0.580).
  • Power law model accurately captured water absorption (R2≈0.923).
  • Inclusion of lithology improved predictive accuracy for open porosity (R2≈0.803).
  • Ensemble tree methods achieved the highest accuracy with R2≈0.949 for open porosity and R2≈0.976 for water absorption.

Abstract

Ultrasound propagation velocity was investigated as a non-destructive predictor of open porosity (ρ0) and water absorption (Aw) in volcanic rocks (two ignimbrites, a trachyte, and a basalt). Six velocity measurements were obtained under dry and saturated conditions along three orthogonal directions, and the dry Z-axis velocity was selected as the reference univariate predictor because it provided the highest explanatory power and the best cross-validated performance among the tested ultrasound variables. Four univariate regressions (linear, exponential, power law, and second-order polynomial), parametric multivariable linear regression, and five machine learning regressors were compared using lithology-stratified 5-fold cross-validation, grouping both ignimbrites as a single lithology. Univariate models showed moderate predictive capability for ρ0 (cross-validated coefficient of determination R2≈ 0.506 to 0.580), whereas Aw was captured more accurately, with the power law model reaching 0.923 ± 0.008. Multivariable linear regression improved ρ0 when lithology was included (0.803 ± 0.084), while changes for Aw were small. The highest accuracy was achieved by ensemble tree methods: extremely randomized trees with lithology yielded 0.949 ± 0.015 for ρ0 (root mean square error 2.16 ± 0.38 percentage points), and Gradient Boosting with lithology yielded 0.976 ± 0.006 for Aw (0.80 ± 0.12 percentage points).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Valido et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c8c2a4de0f0f753b39d067https://doi.org/10.3390/app16073225
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Laboratory measurements of water saturation effects on the acoustic velocity and attenuation of sand packs in the 1–20 kHz frequency range2024 · 7 citations
  2. 2Enhancing of uniaxial compressive strength of travertine rock prediction through machine learning and multivariate analysis2023 · 24 citations
  3. 3Porosity and permeability in volcanic rocks: a case study on the Serie Tobıfera, South Patagonia, Argentina2004 · 143 citations
  4. 4An Experimental Study of Velocity-Saturation Relationships in Volcanic Rocks2015 · 9 citations
  5. 5Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock2001 · 638 citations