Use of Fibers and Welded-Wire Reinforcement in Construction of Slabs on Ground
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different types of fiber-reinforced concrete have been advocated and used as a replacement for welded-wire reinforcement (WWR) in slabs on ground, leading at times to conflicting opinion and/or unrealistic expectation about the benefits of using either WWR or different types of fiber in slabs. In order to verify some of these opinions, tests have been carried out on model slabs (2.5m×2.5m×150mm thick) cast on grade in a test pit and loaded to failure. Results are compared to evaluate the load-carrying capacity for slabs having equivalent amounts of either WWR, fibrillated polypropylene fibers, or steel fibers. Test results show that steel fibers are a suitable alternative to using properly positioned WWR. However, use of polypropylene fibers at a low dosage, which is most common for slab construction (0.9 kg/m3), provides little benefit in terms of increased load-carrying capacity when compared with a plain unreinforced slab. Slab capacity is affected mainly by the postcracking strength of the concrete section, and results from flexure beam tests give a good indication of expected behavior of slabs. The test results also show that a poor subgrade support can be compensated by reinforcing a slab with a moderate amount of either WWR or steel fibers (at a dosage of 30 kg/m3).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".