Development of fiber reinforced concrete repair materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early age shrinkage cracking remains a critical concern for cement-based repairs and overlays. Fibers mitigate such cracking, but no standardized technique of assessing the performance of a given fiber exists. Recently, a novel technique of making such an assessment was developed at The University of British Columbia (UBC). In this test method, currently being balloted through the ASTM, an overlay of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) material to be tested is cast directly on a fully matured sub-base with protuberances, and the entire assembly is subjected to controlled drying. Cracking in the overlay is then monitored and characterized. The technique was recently employed to develop "crack-free" overlay materials for two repair sites. One was a parking garage in Downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, and the other was the plaza deck at The UBC Aquatic Center. For the parking garage, a carbon fiber reinforced concrete and for the plaza deck, a cellulose fiber reinforced concrete were developed. Both overlays were instrumented with strain sensors and data were monitored over the Internet.Key words: fiber reinforced concrete, shrinkage cracking, strain monitoring, carbon fibers, cellulose fibers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".