MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050814898 · doi:10.1139/l09-159

Investigation of bond between lap-spliced steel bar and self-compacting concrete: The role of silica fume

2010· article· en· W2050814898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mehmet Karataş, Kâzım Türk, Zülfü Çınar Ulucan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFirat Üniversitesi
KeywordsSilica fumeMaterials scienceBond strengthComposite materialReinforcementBeam (structure)Tension (geology)Bar (unit)Structural engineeringBondCementUltimate tensile strengthAdhesiveEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, normal concrete (NC) and four types of self-compacting concrete (SCC), in which cement was partially replaced by 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% of silica fume (SF), were used to evaluate the effect of SF content on the bond strength of tension lap-spliced bars embedded in NC and SCC specimens. Therefore, 15 full-scale beam specimens (2000 × 300 × 200 mm 3 ) were tested and 20 mm reinforcing bars were used with a 300-mm splice length as tension reinforcement. Each beam was designed with bars spliced in a constant moment region at midspan. It was found that the bond strength of the reinforcement embedded in SCC beams was higher than that of the reinforcement in NC beams, whilst the bond strength increased with increase in the replacement of cement by SF from 5% to 10%. Moreover, the beam specimens produced from SCC containing 5% SF had the highest normalized bond strength of 1.07 followed by SCC beams with 10% SF, 15% SF, NC beams, and 20% SF.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207