MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323363812 · doi:10.1061/40885(215)28

Pumping Concrete: A Fundamental and Practical Approach

2006· article· en· W2323363812 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Jolin, F. Chapdelaine, F. Gagnon, Denis Beaupré

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalGouvernement du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShotcreteRheologyMaterials scienceOverhead (engineering)Computer scienceMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pumping and shooting of high performance wet-mix shotcrete usually involves a certain amount of compromise. On the one hand, engineers design a mixture with high workability for ease of transport through the hose, and on the other hand, they strive for a mixture that is relatively stiff, adhesive, and cohesive to achieve good adhesion and build-up on vertical or overhead shooting surfaces. Although a decade of developments in set accelerating admixtures and dosing equipment have greatly simplified the application of wet-mix shotcrete in underground environments, only a few fundamental or practical studies have been made on the pumpability of concrete. This paper presents some of the most recent research on the understanding of the key parameters affecting concrete mobility and stability under pressure, i.e. pumpability. Taking into account the mechanics of life-size pumping equipment, complete pressure profiles and pump cylinder fill-rates, along with rheological and tribological properties, are used to predict the mobility and pumpability of a given concrete mixture. A model that accounts for fluid properties and friction is also presented. Experimental results used to validate the model allow explanation of behavioral, variations between the different concrete mixtures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207