Estimating Compressive Strength of Concrete Using Neural Electromagnetic Field Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete compressive strength (CCS) is among the most important mechanical characteristics of this widely used material. This study develops a novel integrative method for efficient prediction of CCS. The suggested method is an artificial neural network (ANN) favorably tuned by electromagnetic field optimization (EFO). The EFO simulates a physics-based strategy, which in this work is employed to find the best contribution of the concrete parameters (i.e., cement (C), blast furnace slag (SBF), fly ash (FA1), water (W), superplasticizer (SP), coarse aggregate (AC), fine aggregate (FA2), and the age of testing (AT)) to the CCS. The same effort is carried out by three benchmark optimizers, namely the water cycle algorithm (WCA), sine cosine algorithm (SCA), and cuttlefish optimization algorithm (CFOA) to be compared with the EFO. The results show that hybridizing the ANN using the mentioned algorithms led to reliable approaches for predicting the CCS. However, comparative analysis indicates that there are appreciable distinctions between the prediction capacity of the ANNs created by the EFO and WCA vs. the SCA and CFOA. For example, the mean absolute error calculated for the testing phase of the ANN-WCA, ANN-SCA, ANN-CFOA, and ANN-EFO was 5.8363, 7.8248, 7.6538, and 5.6236, respectively. Moreover, the EFO was considerably faster than the other strategies. In short, the ANN-EFO is a highly efficient hybrid model, and can be recommended for the early prediction of the CCS. A user-friendly explainable and explicit predictive formula is also derived for the convenient estimation of the CCS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".