## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Estimated**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Reference**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Probe** & **Pore** & **EVA** & **Fiber** & **Pore** & **EVA** & **Fiber** \\ \hline CR & 2.63 & 1.76 & 0.10 & 5.41 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\ EF5 & 5.71 & 3.12 & 0.50 & 5.95 & 2.22 & 0.00 \\ EF15 & 7.83 & 5.54 & 0.50 & 8.98 & 6.59 & 0.00 \\ EF25 & 10.57 & 7.72 & 2.50 & 12.31 & 11.04 & 0.00 \\ EG15 & 7.13 & 2.78 & 1.10 & 11.21 & 6.65 & 0.00 \\
1 EF5 & 1.34 & 0.97 & 0.20 & 0.86 & 2.22 & 0.98 \\
1 EF15 & 16.54 & 6.84 & 0.20 & 15.28 & 6.59 & 0.98 \\
1 EF25 & 12.56 & 7.37 & 1.70 & 10.39 & 11.04 & 0.98 \\
1 EG15 & 6.00 & 4.75 & 1.00 & 7.20 & 6.65 & 0.98 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of the percentages of pore, EVA, and fiber estimated with the TSK inference system operating on attributes obtained from the digital processing of Micro-CT images of the cores, with the calculated reference values of the specimens from the concrete mix. point of view, it represents a systematic deviation that can be corrected with adequate calibration. Estimates of porosity and fiber content do not show a systematic deviation, indicating that the difference between the predicted and reference porosities are the smallest of the four variables studied, while in the case of fiber the largest differences are obtained. In the latter, the estimated values are not correlated with the reference values, which leads to such large differences. The probable cause of this lack of correlation between the estimated and reference values is that 1% of fiber is below the detection threshold of our method, such that the estimated values lack practical value. For this reason, subsequent analysis focuses on the gravel, EVA, and pore content. Determining the fiber detection threshold is a future study to be carried out. Figure 9 shows the estimated values corrected by calibration and the reference values for crushed gravel and EVA contents. The calibration was performed by translation, that is, adding the constants \(c_{gravel}=-11.73\%\) and \(c_{eva}=1.74\%\) to the estimated percentages of gravel and EVA, respectively. The constants were calculated using the formula  
\[c=-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(v_{e,i}-v_{r,i}\right)}{n}, \tag{10}\]  
where \(v_{e,i}\) and \(v_{r,i}\) are estimated and reference values of the variable \(v\) in core \(i\), respectively, and \(n\) is the number of cores studied. The corrected estimates of the variable \(v\) are calculated as \(v_{c,i}=v_{e,i}+c\), fulfilling \(\sum_{i=1}^{n}(v_{c,i}-v_{r,i})=0\). In addition to enabling correction of the systematic deviation in the measured variables, the applied calibration procedure enables measurement of the size of the absolute deviation;  
Figure 8: Comparison between the mean percentages of each object estimated in the samples with our method (rhombuses) and the reference values calculated from the concrete mix (squares). (**A**) Gravel, (**B**) pores, (**C**) EVA, (**D**) fibers. that is, we know that our method overestimates the gravel content by approximately 12% and underestimates the EVA content by approximately 2%. In the remainder of the article, when referring to the estimated gravel and EVA contents, we use the calibrated values. The porosity estimates were not calibrated. In Table 6, we list the estimated and reference values that will be the object of subsequent analysis in this study. The differences between estimates and reference values of the volumetric contents in the lightweight concrete components are not only out of the imprecision of the developed component quantification method. Nevertheless, it is necessary to establish a resolution concept for the method from the difference between the estimates and the reference values. In other words, we will assume that resolution of the method increases when the difference between estimates and reference values decreases.