Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The flowchart of the research project.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Distribution histograms for inputs (in blue) and outputs (in green).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Training dataset.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Validation dataset.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Statistical analysis of collected database.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Pearson correlation matrix of the dataset.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 3.

Typical illustrative framework for the genetic programming model.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Typical illustrative framework for the ANN.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Typical framework for the RSM model.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Layout for the developed ANN models.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Relative importance of input parameters.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 5.

Weights matrix for the developed ANN.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 8.

Relation between predicted and calculated (UCS7) values using the developed models.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Relation between predicted and calculated (UCS28) values using the developed models.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Comparing the accuracies of the developed models using Taylor charts, a) For UCS7, b) For UCS28.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 6.

Accuracies of developed models.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Fit Statistics of the RSM UCS model.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 11.

Normal plot of residuals for normal percentage probability and externally studentized residuals for the unconfined compressive strength RSM model.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Illustrative representation of the externally studentized residuals and the predicted values of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Illustrative representation of the externally studentized residuals and the entry runs of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Illustrative representation of the Cook’s distance of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Illustrative representation of the Box-Cox Plot for Power Transform of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Illustrative representation of the predicted versus actual values of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Illustrative representation of the residuals versus gravel parameter values of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Fig 18.

Illustrative representation of the leverage versus run values of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 18 Expand

Fig 19.

Illustrative representation of the DFFITS versus run values of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 19 Expand

Fig 20.

Illustrative representation of the DFBETAS versus run values of the UCS model.

More »

Fig 20 Expand

Fig 21.

Illustrative representation of the perturbation, FDS, and 3D surface behavior of the UCS model with selected parameters.

More »

Fig 21 Expand