Modeling of Compressive Strength for Self-Consolidating High-Strength Concrete Incorporating Palm Oil Fuel Ash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling is a very useful method for the performance prediction of concrete. Most of the models available in literature are related to the compressive strength because it is a major mechanical property used in concrete design. Many attempts were taken to develop suitable mathematical models for the prediction of compressive strength of different concretes, but not for self-consolidating high-strength concrete (SCHSC) containing palm oil fuel ash (POFA). The present study has used artificial neural networks (ANN) to predict the compressive strength of SCHSC incorporating POFA. The ANN model has been developed and validated in this research using the mix proportioning and experimental strength data of 20 different SCHSC mixes. Seventy percent (70%) of the data were used to carry out the training of the ANN model. The remaining 30% of the data were used for testing the model. The training of the ANN model was stopped when the root mean square error (RMSE) and the percentage of good patterns was 0.001 and ≈100%, respectively. The predicted compressive strength values obtained from the trained ANN model were much closer to the experimental values of compressive strength. The coefficient of determination (R2) for the relationship between the predicted and experimental compressive strengths was 0.9486, which shows the higher degree of accuracy of the network pattern. Furthermore, the predicted compressive strength was found very close to the experimental compressive strength during the testing process of the ANN model. The absolute and percentage relative errors in the testing process were significantly low with a mean value of 1.74 MPa and 3.13%, respectively, which indicated that the compressive strength of SCHSC including POFA can be efficiently predicted by the ANN.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".