Effect of Mixture Consistency on Formwork Pressure Exerted by Highly Flowable Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental program was undertaken to evaluate the effect of a mixture’s consistency on the lateral pressure that can be developed by highly flowable concrete. Six mixtures, with various contents of high-range water-reducing admixtures, were tested and had consistency levels varying between a slump of 220mm and a slump flow of 750mm . The mixtures had similar water-to-cementitious materials and sand-to-total aggregate ratios of 0.40 and 0.46, respectively. Depending on the mixture consistency, the maximum initial pressures varied between 75 and 98% of hydrostatic. Concretes with lower consistency were shown to exert lower initial lateral pressure and had faster rates of pressure drop with time. This can be attributed to the increased degree of shear strengths that enables the fresh concrete to further resist vertical stresses, hence precluding the development of high lateral pressure. Self-consolidating concrete mixtures made with standard CSA Type 10 cement exhibited higher initial pressure and lower rates of pressure drop compared to those of equal consistency prepared with ternary cement. At the end of the dormant period of cement hydration, the acceleration of formation of hydrates is shown to enable the concrete to be self-bearing—resulting in the cancellation of lateral pressure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".