Portable Pressure Device to Evaluate Lateral Formwork Pressure Exerted by Fresh Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of a reliable and accurate measuring system to determine lateral pressure exerted on formwork by self-consolidating concrete can lead to economic and safe formwork systems. In this paper, a portable and field-compatible pressure device is developed to enable factors affecting lateral pressure of fresh concrete on formwork system to be explored prior to conducting onsite full-scale tests. The pressure device requires a sample of 16 L of fresh concrete to determine lateral pressure envelope that can be exerted by a concrete column of up to 13 m in height. The pressure device enables the simulation of such concrete head using an overhead pressure exerted onto the fresh concrete. A number of parameters are used to validate the pressure device, including placement rate as well as mix designs of various paste volume, slump flow, ratio of water to cementitious material, maximum size of aggregate, and dosages of chemical admixtures. The test results indicated that the repeatability of the lateral pressure values obtained using the pressure device shows relative error of about 7%. The validation of the pressure device clearly showed that the device adequately reflects the effect the various factors affecting lateral pressure characteristics of fresh 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".