Effect of coarse aggregate size on strength and workability of concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The properties of concrete were studied when the proportions of 37.5 and 19.5 mm stone in the coarse aggregate were varied. With the cement content of 160 kg/m3 and the ratio of water/cement (w/c) greater than 0.9, the compressive strength is maximum at 25 percent by weight (w/o) of 37.5 mm stone. Conversely, for the cement content of 350 kg/m3 and w/c ratios of less than 0.50, maximum compressive strength is substantively reduced. For both 160 kg/m3 and 350 kg/m3 cement contents, workability improves slightly as the proportion of the 37.5 mm stone is increased. For 100 mm fixed slumps and cement content of less than 160 kg/m3, there was little change in compressive strength as the proportion of 37.5 mm stone increased. However, when cement content was increased from 190 to 350 kg/m3, maximum compressive strength was observed, which shifted downward from 50 w/o to 25 w/o of 37.5 mm stone. In general, to maintain a 100 mm slump, water demand decreased as the proportion of 37.5 mm stone in the coarse aggregate fraction increased.Key words: concrete, compressive strength, workability, slump, aggregate, size, cement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".