Machine learning prediction of the mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC) reinforced with hybrid fibers, incorporating industrial wastes like fly ash and blast furnace slag, and cured under elevated heat provides a reliable and efficient alternative to traditional laboratory experiments. In this work, extensive literature review leading to the collection, sorting and curation of a global database representative of the mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete reinforced with hybrid fiber mixed with industrial wastes for sustainable construction was conducted. The collected database constituted traditional concrete components and admixtures such as Cement (C), Fly ash (FA), Slag (BFS), Fine Aggregate (FAg), Coarse Aggregate (CAg), Water (W), Superplasticizer (PL), Fiber (Fi), and Temperature (Temp.) studied under the mechanical properties such as the Compressive Strength (Fc), Tensile Strength (Fsp), and Flexural Strength (Ff). The collected 114 records were divided into training set (90 records = 80%) and validation set (24 records = 20%) following the guidelines for data partitioning for optimal performance in machine learning predictions. Different advanced machine learning methods created using "Weka Data Mining" software version 3.8.6 were applied such as "Semi-supervised classifier (Kstar)", "M5 classifier (M5Rules), "Elastic net classifier (ElasticNet), "Correlated Nystrom Views (XNV)", and "Decision Table (DT)" to predict the output. The Hoffman/Gardener and SHAP techniques are used to estimate the sensitivity of the input parameter on the output. Finally, various performance metrics are used to evaluate the reliability of the models. The results show that the machine learning models show varying degrees of predictive accuracy, with the Kstar and XNV models consistently outperforming others across all mechanical properties. However, Kstar with accuracies of 96.5%, 96.0%, and 97.0% for Fc, Fsp, and Ff predictions, respectively proposed the most decisive model. Also, the Hoffman and Gardener method highlights the role of the binders, chemical additives, and curing, whereas SHAP attributes greater importance to aggregates and binder interactions.