Effect of surface treatment on the post-peak residual strength and toughness of polypropylene/polyethylene-blended fiber-reinforced concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study involved an experimental investigation into the improvement of mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) utilizing chemically treated polypropylene/polyethylene fibers. Four types of chemical surface treatments were examined: two types of chromic acid (Types B and C), potassium permanganate (PP), and hydrogen peroxide solutions. Untreated and treated fibers were added at 0.32% by volume of concrete and also at 0.50% for the best treatment technique. Compressive and flexural strength were measured to quantify improvement. It was found that there were no significant differences in compressive strength. Type B chromic acid solution was found to be the most effective technique in improving the flexural strength of FRC resulting in average increases of 8.9% and 17.6% for peak and residual strengths, respectively, compared to nontreated fibers. While not as effective as plasma treatments, further research may be warranted for chemical treatments. Surface wettability of the treated fibers was measured by contact angle with water. The contact angle was found to have no correlation to the toughness. The higher volume of fibers, both treated and nontreated gave higher residual strength and toughness; however, surface treatment did not significantly enhance mechanical properties.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".