Predicting Compressive and Splitting Tensile Strengths of Silica Fume Concrete Using M5P Model Tree Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compressive strength (CS) and splitting tensile strength (STS) are paramount parameters in the design of reinforced concrete structures and are required by pertinent standard provisions. Robust prediction models for these properties can save time and cost by reducing the number of laboratory trial batches and experiments needed to generate suitable design data. Silica fume (SF) is often used in concrete owing to its substantial enhancements of the engineering properties of concrete and its environmental benefits. In the present study, the M5P model tree algorithm was used to develop models for the prediction of the CS and STS of concrete incorporating SF. Accordingly, large databases comprising 796 data points for CS and 156 data records for STS were compiled from peer-reviewed published literature. The predictions of the M5P models were compared with linear regression analysis and gene expression programming. Different statistical metrics, including the coefficient of determination, correlation coefficient, root mean squared error, mean absolute error, relative squared error, and discrepancy ratio, were deployed to appraise the performance of the developed models. Moreover, parametric analysis was carried out to investigate the influence of different input parameters, such as the SF content, water-to-binder ratio, and age of the specimen, on the CS and STS. The trained models offer a rapid and accurate tool that can assist the designer in the effective proportioning of silica fume 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".