Influence of pouring techniques and mixtures fresh properties on the structural performance of self-consolidating concrete beams
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
An experimental investigation was conducted to study the influence of pouring techniques and mixture’s fresh properties on the shear strength, cracking behavior and mid-span deflection of large-scale Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC) beams. SCC beams were poured in two different techniques: the first technique was to pour the concrete from one side of the formwork only, while the second technique was to move the pouring point along the full beam length. The variables were: the concrete type, length and depth of beams, and the viscosity and yield stress of SCC mixture. The study also included a comparison between the experimental shear strength results and the predictions of some major code-based equations. The results obtained from this investigation proved that different pouring techniques, viscosity and/or yield stress of SCC mixtures did not have a significant effect on the structural performance of SCC beams. However, beams cast with lower yield stress appeared to have slightly higher shear strength and minimum average crack heights. Also, SCC beams with higher viscosity mixture tended to have lower stiffness compared to SCC mixtures with normal viscosity mixture. Key words: Self-consolidating concrete, pouring techniques, shear strength, structural performance, code-based analysis, cracking, load-deformation response.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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