MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005527675 · doi:10.1260/2041-4196.1.3.409

Drop-Weight Impact Response of Fibre Reinforced Cement Based Foams

2010· article· en· W2005527675 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Abdullah Al Mamun, Vivek Bindiganavile

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Protective Structures · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialRelative densityPortland cementFlexural strengthCompressive strengthToughnessBrittlenessPolypropyleneDrop (telecommunication)Compression (physics)ModulusCementMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the strength and toughness of fibre reinforced cement based foams subjected to bending under variable strain rates. Drop-weight impact tests were conducted on notched beams with cast density between 475 kg/m3 to 1200 kg/m3. The foams were reinforced with 0–0.2% polypropylene microfibre by volume and their role in improving the dynamic properties is illustrated. The structure of the cell wall within the foams was engineered through a suitable choice of foaming agent, such that foams with a predominantly closed cell structure were produced. Companion tests were conducted as per ASTM standards in compression and flexure under quasi-static loading. The results were compared to other brittle cellular solids from the literature, and the mechanical properties are described in terms of the relative density, defined as the ratio of the density of the cellular composite relative to that of Portland cement paste in the cell wall. The study shows that under quasi-static loading, the compressive strength, elastic modulus and modulus of rupture of plain mixes scale with the square of the relative density. On the other hand, the flexural toughness factor scaled linearly with it. Fibres were seen to increase the flexural strength at all rates of loading, regardless of cast density. However, the Poisson's ratio remained unaffected by the density of the mix. Further, cement based foams were seen to be strain rate sensitive but, the existing CEB-FIP model for cementitious materials vastly overestimates the dynamic impact factor at lower cast densities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Protective StructuresSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207