THE EVALUATION OF CHANGE IN CONCRETE STRENGTH DUE TO FABRIC FORMWORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Fabric, as a flexible formwork for concrete, gives builders, engineers, and architects the ability to form virtually any shape. This technique produces a superb concrete surface quality that requires no further touch up or finishing. Woven polyolefin fabrics are recommended for this application. The texture of this fabric allows water from concrete mix to bleed, and therefore reduces the water-cement ratio of the mix. Due to the reduction in the water-cement ratio, a higher compressive strength in fabric-formed concrete is achieved, which is also suggested by earlier studies. The current research study was conducted to investigate and document the changes in concrete strength and overall quality due to these woven polyolefin fabrics. Use of fabric formwork will result in a decrease in construction cost, construction waste, and greenhouse gas emissions. Two sets of tests were conducted in this research study: a comparison of the compressive strength of fabric-formed versus PVC-formed concrete cylinders, and a comparison of the behaviour of the fabric-formed columns versus cardboard-formed reinforced concrete columns. Variables in this research were limited to two types of fabric that included one with coarse and one with a more refined texture, and two types of concrete that included ordinary and flyash concrete. The laboratory results revealed that the effects of fabric formwork on concrete quality in a large member are limited mostly to the surface zone and the core of the concrete remains the same as a conventionally formed concrete. Even though fabric-formed cylinder tests showed an average of a 15% increase in compressive strength of the concrete samples, the compressive strength of the reinforced columns did not dramatically change when compared to the companion cardboard formed control columns. This research confirmed that fabric formwork is a structurally safe alternative for forming reinforced concrete columns.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".