Residual Mechanical Response of Recycled Aggregate Concrete after Exposure to Elevated Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A considerable number of investigations have been conducted on the mechanical and material properties of concrete made with recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), as these properties can often be different than those of conventional concrete. However, relatively little attention has been directed at studying the performance of concrete made with RCA at elevated temperatures. This is despite the fact that coarse aggregates play an important role in the behavior of concrete under fire exposure. To address the lack of knowledge, an experimental program was conducted in which six different concrete mixes were prepared with different combinations of coarse aggregates made from recycled concrete aggregate, river gravel, and crushed limestone aggregates. A total of 204 concrete cylinders (100×200 mm) were cast and heated under four different temperatures: 20°C (ambient temperature), 250, 500, and 750°C. The residual compressive and tensile strengths, moduli of elasticity, and damage and failure patterns of the concretes were observed and analyzed. The results indicate that concrete with aggregate both fully and partially replaced with RCA exhibits good performance under elevated temperatures and it can be considered comparable to conventional concrete. No concrete disintegration was observed when RCA concrete was heated up to 750°C. The results of tests of residual mechanical properties show some variation among concretes made with different replacement percentages of RCA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".