MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Novel multi-scale experimental approach and deep learning model to optimize capillary pressure evolution in early age concrete

2024· article· en· W4393333035 on OpenAlexaff
Armin Jamali, Afshin Marani, James Railton, Moncef L. Nehdi, Brabha Nagaratnam, Michael Lim, J. Mendes

Bibliographic record

VenueCement and Concrete Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Properties and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Materials scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early-age shrinkage of concrete can initiate pre-mature cracking, which can compromise the durability of concrete structures. Monitoring capillary pressure, the leading cause of concrete shrinkage, and understanding its evolution is crucial for the performance-based design of concrete, particularly at early-stages when it is more prone to cracking. This study deploys an innovative multi-scale experimental program using high-capacity tensiometers to monitor the capillary pressure up to 2000 kPa. This allowed investigating the effects of key design parameters, including the water-to-cement ratio, GGBS, SRA, and measurement depth, on the capillary pressure evolution in concrete. A new robust deep neural network model was developed to conduct extensive numerical experiments to predict the capillary pressure evolution of diverse mixtures. The net effect of multi-parameters on the capillary pressure can be investigated with this model, providing insights into the optimum design of more durable concrete mixtures with the lowest capillary pressure evolution, and guiding the implementation of appropriate cost-effective shrinkage-mitigating strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCement and Concrete ResearchSame topicConcrete Properties and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207