Comparative study of plastic property test methods for self-consolidating concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there are a variety of test methods to evaluate the plastic properties of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) specified in provincial, national, and international guidelines. There is, however, a dearth of knowledge on how the results of the various test methods compare with each other. Some of the tests are direct measures, others are indirect; some of the tests are qualitative and others are quantitative; and some tests have specified acceptance limits while others do not. The purpose of this study, initiated by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), is to compare the plastic properties (filling ability, passing ability, and segregation resistance) of SCC and identify any correlations between them to determine the most appropriate test methods for evaluating the plastic properties of SCC. The filling ability (slump flow, L-box (t20 and t40), and V-funnel), passing ability (J-ring and L-box blocking ratio), and segregation resistance (visual stability index, column method, V-funnel (t5-t0)) tests are conducted on eight SCC mix designs. The results are compared to the acceptance criteria specified by the MTO for SCC. Based on the results, and their relationships, the plastic property tests most suitable for laboratory, prequalification, and field-testing are recommended.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".