Prediction of the optimum asphalt content using artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of the asphalt mix is significantly influenced by the optimum asphalt content (OAC). The asphalt content is responsible for coating the aggregate surface and filling the voids between the aggregate particles. Thus, the aggregate gradation has a significant influence on the required asphalt content. The Marshall design process is the most common method used for estimating the OAC, and this process is called the asphalt mix design. However, this method is time consuming, labor intensive, and its results are subjected to variations. Thus, this paper employs the artificial neural network (ANN) to estimate the OAC from the aggregate gradation for the two most common gradations used in asphalt mixes in Egypt (3D, 4C). Results show that the proposed ANN can predict the OAC with a coefficient of correlation of 0.98 and an average error of 0.026%. As a result, a new approach for the Marshall test can be adopted using results of the proposed ANN, and only three specimens, instead of fifteen, are prepared and tested for estimating the remaining parameters. This approach saves the time, effort, and resources required for estimating the OAC. Additionally, the ANN was validated with previously developed models, and the ANN shows promising results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".