Comparative low-velocity impact response of textile-reinforced concrete and steel-fiber-reinforced concrete beams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the effect of the textile reinforcement type on the flexural response of textile-reinforced concrete beams under static and impact loads was investigated. In addition, to compare the flexural capacities with those of conventional steel-fiber-reinforced concrete, steel-fiber-reinforced concrete beams having similar compressive strength with that of textile-reinforced concrete were fabricated and tested according to the fiber content. Enhancements in the flexural capacities were obtained using polymer-coated textile reinforcement, and three-dimensional textile reinforcement resulted in slightly better flexural performance than two-dimensional textile reinforcement under both static and impact loads. Upon comparison with the results obtained from the steel-fiber-reinforced concrete beams, the textile-reinforced concrete specimen with polymer-coated textile reinforcement exhibited the best flexural performance in terms of the strength, toughness, and residual load carrying capacity (higher than or at least similar to those of the steel-fiber-reinforced concrete with a fiber volume content of 2%), whereas the textile-reinforced concrete specimens with uncoated textile reinforcement exhibited lower strength and toughness than those of the steel-fiber-reinforced concrete with a fiber volume content of 0.5%. Finally, the strain-rate sensitivity of the flexural strength for textile-reinforced concrete was found to be similar to that for steel-fiber-reinforced concrete.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it