Measurement and Prediction of Effect Slenderness Ratios and Aggregate to the Compressive Strength of Concrete by the Core-Drilling Method in Tandem with Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The slenderness ratio, length to diameter, of the cylindrical concrete samples of the slab block by the core-drilling method is believed to affect the compressive strength other than the aggregates in the concrete.In this study, the relationship between the compressive strength with mixing and slenderness ratio of cylindrical concrete specimens was investigated by statistics.Further, the discrimination model for mixing cylindrical concrete specimens has been developed by using machine learning algorithms, including support vector machine (SVM), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), and random forest (RF).A total of 180 cylindrical concrete specimens have been measured for compressive strength using UTM.The sample consisted of a mixture of type-A and type-B with a slenderness ratio of 2.48, 2.72, and 3.28, respectively.Samples were obtained by the core-drilling method from slab block concrete.The ANOVA tests showed that the aggregate and slenderness ratio caused a significant difference in the compressive strength of the concrete (p<0.05).This indicates that the type of aggregate mixture in concrete and the slenderness ratio of cylindrical concrete specimens significantly affect the compressive strength of the concrete.The model for discrimination of mixing cylindrical concrete specimens using machine learning algorithms can be used with satisfactory results.LDA is a machine learning algorithm that can show stability in the training and testing stages with accuracy reaching 78% and inconsistency of less than 2.63% (the smallest compared to others).The descending order of machine learning algorithms based on their consistency is LDA > RF > SVM > k-NN.Subsequently, this model can discriminate the aggregate mixture on cylindrical concrete specimens obtained from the core-drilling method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 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".