Bond of Reinforcement in Concrete Incorporating Recycled Concrete Aggregates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using recycled concrete aggregates (RCAs) as coarse aggregate in concrete has the potential to supplement current natural aggregate reserves, divert construction and demolition debris from landfills, and promote the adoption of sustainable civil infrastructure. As many of the design equations used to calculate structural concrete properties are based on empirical data for natural aggregate concrete, using these equations for RCA concrete may not be applicable. This study examined the bond of reinforcement in concrete produced using RCA as coarse aggregate. One natural aggregate (NA) and three RCA sources were evaluated and used as coarse aggregate in 14 separate concrete mixtures with four compressive strength levels. Various concrete mechanical properties, including compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus of rupture, and fracture energy, were tested, and correlations between these properties and reinforcement bond were studied. The reinforcement bond was measured using 48 beam-end specimens incorporating several bonded lengths. The results showed that bond strength of RCA concrete was reduced by up to 21% in comparison to NA concrete, and that there was a strong correlation between bond strength and coarse aggregate crushing strength. A regression model was developed to relate bond strength to coarse aggregate strength, concrete compressive strength, and the bonded length. Using this model, experimentally predicted development lengths were calculated to be up to 9% greater for RCA concrete members in comparison to NA concrete members. Overall, this study was directed at providing guidance on the evaluation of multiple RCA sources and their respective impact on the bond of reinforcement in structural concrete.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it