Lightweight Self-consolidating Concrete with Expanded Shale Aggregates: Modelling and Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents statistical models developed to study the influence of key mix design parameters on the properties of lightweight self-consolidating concrete (LWSCC) with expanded shale (ESH) aggregates. Twenty LWSCC mixtures are designed and tested, where responses (properties) are evaluated to analyze influence of mix design parameters and develop the models. Such responses included slump flow diameter, V-funnel flow time, J-ring flow diameter, J-ring height difference, L-box ratio, filling capacity, sieve segregation, unit weight and compressive strength. The developed models are valid for mixes with 0.30–0.40 water-to-binder ratio, high range water reducing admixture of 0.3–1.2 % (by total content of binder) and total binder content of 410–550 kg/m 3 . The models are able to identify the influential mix design parameters and their interactions which can be useful to reduce the test protocol needed for proportioning of LWSCCs. Three industrial class ESH–LWSCC mixtures are developed using statistical models and their performance is validated through test results with good agreement. The developed ESH–LWSCC mixtures are able to satisfy the European EFNARC criteria for self-consolidating concrete.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".