Properties of freshly mixed carbon fibre reinforced self-consolidating concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of discrete pitch-based carbon fibres on the fresh properties of self-consolidating concrete. Different carbon fibre reinforced self-consolidating concrete mixtures were produced incorporating 0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% carbon fibres by concrete volume with two water-to-binder ratios (0.35 and 0.40). The flowing ability (filling ability and passing ability) of the concrete mixtures was determined with respect to slump flow, J-ring slump flow, and T 50 slump flow time. The segregation resistance of the concrete mixtures was evaluated by using the sieve stability test. Visual stability index (VSI) was also used to assess the segregation resistance of concrete. Moreover, the freshly mixed concrete mixtures were tested for air content and unit weight. The hardened concretes were tested by a Scanning Electron Microscope to observe the distribution of fibres. Test results revealed that the increased amount of carbon fibres decreased the filling ability and passing ability of concrete. However, carbon fibres had no adverse effects on the segregation resistance of concrete. Also, no significant air entrapment occurred in the presence of carbon fibres. Carbon fibres were well-distributed and they slightly decreased the unit weight of 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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".