MétaCan
← all works

Toughness Characterization of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Which Standard to Use?

2004· article· en· 13 citations· W2034247034 on OpenAlex· 10.1520/jte11901

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

The three-model screen

all 1,000 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Comparison of concrete toughness test standards; measurement standards in materials engineering, and the 'reproducibility' language is assay-level, a polysemy trap.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This compares concrete testing standards and measurement results, not research methods as a social or scholarly practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Compares engineering materials-test standards for concrete toughness; object is construction materials testing, not research.

Abstract

Abstract The major advantage of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) over its plain counterpart is in its improved energy absorption capability, or ‘toughness.’ There are currently several standard test methods available to characterize the toughness of fiber-reinforced concrete, but little is known of the relationship between the toughness results they produce for a given fiber-reinforced concrete. An attempt is made here to compare the results produced by three of these techniques: ASTM C 1018, ASTM C 1399, and JSCE SF-4 for the same concrete and to assess the subjectivity encountered in toughness characterization. It was found that there is no firm and reliable correlation between these three procedures; they would rank different FRCs differently. Only a weak correlation exists between the toughness parameters generated by the C 1399 and the SF-4 standards, and the correlation is highly dependent on the fiber type. The ASTM C 1018 procedure is the least reliable of all and produces Toughness Indices and RM,N values that are very difficult to interpret.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

The record

Venue
Journal of Testing and Evaluation
Topic
Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
Field
Engineering
Canadian institutions
University of British Columbia
Funders
Keywords
ToughnessMaterials scienceComposite materialFiberFiber-reinforced concreteCharacterization (materials science)Reinforced concrete
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes