MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319318926 · doi:10.3390/app13042033

Application of Machine Learning to Predict the Mechanical Characteristics of Concrete Containing Recycled Plastic-Based Materials

2023· article· en· W4319318926 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Rezvan, Mohammad Javad Moradi, Hamed Dabiri, Kambiz Daneshvar, Moses Karakouzian, Visar Farhangi

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyethylene terephthalateMaterials scienceComposite materialBottleFiberStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the practical ways to overcome the adverse environmental effects of plastic bottle waste is to implement bottles into concrete, one of the most widely used materials in the construction industry. Plastic bottles are mainly made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and can be used as a fiber to reinforce concrete. In recent years, PET fiber-reinforced concrete (PFRC) has attracted researcher attention, and several experimental studies have been conducted. This paper aims to present the benefits of using PET fiber as a reinforcing element in concrete using a machine learning approach. By considering the effect of PET fibers in concrete, engineers and stakeholders may be encouraged to further use these recycled materials. The proposed network was successfully able to capture the response of PFRC with high accuracy (mean squared error (MSE) of 7.11 MPa and R coefficient of 98%). The results of the proposed network show that the amount of PET fiber usage in concrete has a significant effect on the compressive strength of PFRC. Moreover, the PFRC’s response considering the variation of mechanical and geometrical properties of PET fiber mainly depends on the fiber’s shape. The most effective shapes of PET fiber are shapes with deformation, followed by embossed and irregular shapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207