Computation of Compressive Strength of GGBS Mixed Concrete using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete is a composite material formed by cement, water, and aggregate. Concrete is an important material for any Civil Engineering project. Several concretes are produced as per the functional requirements using waste materials or by-products. Many researchers reported that these waste materials or by-products enhance the concrete properties, but the laboratory procedures for determining the concrete properties are time-consuming. Therefore, numerous researchers used statistical and artificial intelligence methods for predicting concrete properties. In the present research work, the compressive strength of GGBS mixed concrete is computed using AI technologies, namely Regression Analysis (RA), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). The cement content (CC), C/F ratio, w/c ratio, GGBS (in Kg & %), admixture, and age (days) are selected as input parameters to construct the RA, SVM, DT, ANNs models for computing the compressive strength of GGBS mixed concrete. The CS_MLR, Link_CS_SVM, 20LF_CS_DT, and GDM_CS_ANN models are identified as the best architectural AI models based on the performance of AI models. The performance of the best architectural AI models is compared to determine the optimum performance model. The correlation coefficient is computed for input and output variables. The compressive strength of GGBS mixed concrete is highly influenced by age (curing days). Comparing the performance of optimum performance AI models and models available in the literature study shows that the optimum performance AI model outperformed the published models.
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 | 0.001 | 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".