Shear Behavior of High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete versus Conventional Concrete: Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production of portland cement—the key ingredient in concrete—generates a significant amount of carbon dioxide. However, due to its incredible versatility, availability, and relatively low cost, concrete is the most consumed synthetic material on the planet. One method of reducing concrete’s contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions is the use of fly ash to replace a significant amount of the cement. This paper compares two experimental studies that were conducted to investigate the shear strength of full-scale beams constructed with both high-volume fly ash concrete (HVFAC)—concrete with at least 50% of the cement replaced with fly ash—and conventional concrete (CC). The primary difference between the two studies involved the amount of cementitious material, with one mix having a relatively high-total cementitious content [502 kg/m3 (850 lb/yd3)] and the other mix having a relatively low-total cementitious content [337 kg/m3 (570 lb/yd3)]. Both HVFAC mixes used a 70% mass replacement of portland cement with Class C fly ash. Each of these experimental programs consisted of 16 beams—eight constructed from HVFAC and eight constructed from CC—with three different longitudinal reinforcement ratios. The beams were tested under a simply supported four-point-loading condition. The experimental shear strengths of the beams were compared with both the shear provisions of selected standards (United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, and Japan) and a shear database of CC specimens. This comparison indicates that the HVFAC beams possess superior shear strength compared with the CC beams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".