- Volumes 96-107 (2025)
-
Volumes 84-95 (2024)
-
Volume 95
Pages 1-392 (December 2024)
-
Volume 94
Pages 1-400 (November 2024)
-
Volume 93
Pages 1-376 (October 2024)
-
Volume 92
Pages 1-316 (September 2024)
-
Volume 91
Pages 1-378 (August 2024)
-
Volume 90
Pages 1-580 (July 2024)
-
Volume 89
Pages 1-278 (June 2024)
-
Volume 88
Pages 1-350 (May 2024)
-
Volume 87
Pages 1-338 (April 2024)
-
Volume 86
Pages 1-312 (March 2024)
-
Volume 85
Pages 1-334 (February 2024)
-
Volume 84
Pages 1-308 (January 2024)
-
Volume 95
-
Volumes 72-83 (2023)
-
Volume 83
Pages 1-258 (December 2023)
-
Volume 82
Pages 1-204 (November 2023)
-
Volume 81
Pages 1-188 (October 2023)
-
Volume 80
Pages 1-202 (September 2023)
-
Volume 79
Pages 1-172 (August 2023)
-
Volume 78
Pages 1-146 (July 2023)
-
Volume 77
Pages 1-152 (June 2023)
-
Volume 76
Pages 1-176 (May 2023)
-
Volume 75
Pages 1-228 (April 2023)
-
Volume 74
Pages 1-200 (March 2023)
-
Volume 73
Pages 1-138 (February 2023)
-
Volume 72
Pages 1-144 (January 2023)
-
Volume 83
-
Volumes 60-71 (2022)
-
Volume 71
Pages 1-108 (December 2022)
-
Volume 70
Pages 1-106 (November 2022)
-
Volume 69
Pages 1-122 (October 2022)
-
Volume 68
Pages 1-124 (September 2022)
-
Volume 67
Pages 1-102 (August 2022)
-
Volume 66
Pages 1-112 (July 2022)
-
Volume 65
Pages 1-138 (June 2022)
-
Volume 64
Pages 1-186 (May 2022)
-
Volume 63
Pages 1-124 (April 2022)
-
Volume 62
Pages 1-104 (March 2022)
-
Volume 61
Pages 1-120 (February 2022)
-
Volume 60
Pages 1-124 (January 2022)
-
Volume 71
- Volumes 54-59 (2021)
- Volumes 48-53 (2020)
- Volumes 42-47 (2019)
- Volumes 36-41 (2018)
- Volumes 30-35 (2017)
- Volumes 24-29 (2016)
- Volumes 18-23 (2015)
- Volumes 12-17 (2014)
- Volume 11 (2013)
- Volume 10 (2012)
- Volume 9 (2011)
- Volume 8 (2010)
- Volume 7 (2009)
- Volume 6 (2008)
- Volume 5 (2007)
- Volume 4 (2006)
- Volume 3 (2005)
- Volume 2 (2004)
- Volume 1 (2003)
Zhipeng Wang a, Yuhang Jiang a, Yaonan Zhu b, Feng Ma c, Youzhao Wang a *, Chaoyue Zhao a, Xu Li a, Tong Zhu a *
• Machine learning and response surface methodology study of soil-agent mixing characteristics.
• Predictive performance of five machine learning models is compared.
• Improved mixing homogeneity in a new nine-axis in-situ soil remediation equipment.
• Provides reference values for the design of multi-axis soil remediation equipment.
To facilitate the recycling of polluted soils, the development of innovative multi-axial soil remediation machinery is essential for achieving a uniform blend of soil with remediation chemicals. The mean level of the steepest climb test was set using the mean level derived from the orthogonal test, and then the range of optimum values was determined based on the results of the steepest climb test, and the upper and lower bound intervals of the response surface test were set accordingly. The most optimal model is identified by applying machine learning algorithms to the response surface data. The results show that the Decision Tree model outperforms Random Forest, SVR, KNN and XG Boost in terms of accuracy and stability in predicting dual indicators. Analysis of the decision tree model yields the following optimal parameter settings: homogenisation time of 1.7 s, homogenisation spacing of 181 mm, crusher spacing of 156 mm, and speed of 113 rpm. In the final test prototype, the error rates of the machine learning prediction models were 3.01% and 3.88% respectively. The experimental data confirms that the prediction accuracy reaches a satisfactory level after applying machine learning to optimise the parameters. This study will provide a reference for the design and optimisation of new in situ multi-axial soil remediation devices.