Machine Learning Prediction of Residual Mechanical Strength of Hybrid-Fiber-Reinforced Self-consolidating Concrete Exposed to Elevated Temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing the engineering properties of cement-based composites at elevated temperature requires costly, laborious, and time-consuming experimental work. Data-driven models can provide a robust and efficient alternative. In this study, extreme learning machine (ELM), support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network (ANN), and decision tree (DT) models were trained to predict the residual compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths of hybrid fiber-reinforced self-compacting concrete (HFR-SCC) exposed to high temperatures. Mixtures including macro and micro steel fibers, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and polypropylene (PP) were subjected to different temperature levels, leading to an experimental database of 360 specimens. Eleven input parameters including cement, fly ash, water, sand, gravel, fiber type, water reducer, and temperature were deployed. The residual mechanical strengths were targeted as output parameters. ANOVA was used to explore the influence of input parameters. Temperature was found to be the most influential parameter. Dataset consisting of 114 instances was retrieved from pertinent literature and used along with the authors’ experimentally generated dataset for residual strength prediction. The experimental results were compared with predictions of ELM, SVM, ANN, and DT. ELM achieved superior performance and can offer a robust tool for predicting the residual mechanical strengths of HFR-SCC upon exposure to high temperature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".