MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011506192 · doi:10.1617/s11527-014-0274-y

Form pressure generated by fresh concrete: a review about practice in formwork design

2014· review· en· W2011506192 on OpenAlex
Tilo Proske, Kamal H. Khayat, Ahmed Omran, Olaf Leitzbach

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials and Structures · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormworkSolid mechanicsSelf-consolidating concreteEngineeringStructural engineeringCivil engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialCompressive strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, several current industrial practices in formwork design are presented focusing on the normative calculation of the form pressure. Most of the current Standards are devoting for the design of the formwork for the normal vibrated concrete. Currently, the Standards are being updated to include provisions for the newly adapted concrete, such as the flowable concrete and self-consolidating concrete. However, the experience with these methods is still limited. The available methods for calculating the formwork pressure for the flowable concrete and SCC are based on measuring the shear strength of concrete using different concepts, such as the setting time of concrete or the structural build-up at rest. More field work is necessary to validate and provide the confidence to the available methods for the formwork pressure calculation. With this information the regulations could be improved to ensure a more economic formwork design. The paper was discussed within the RILEM TC 233-FPC “Form pressure generated by 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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