Comparative Biaxial Flexural Behavior of Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Panels Using Two Different Test and Placement Methods
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
Abstract In order to investigate the effects of fiber length, placement method, and test method on the biaxial flexural behaviors of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC), several UHPFRC panels with two different fiber lengths (Lf of 13 and 19.5 mm) were fabricated using two different placement methods (placing concrete at the center and the edge) and were then tested by two different test methods (ASTM C1550-12a and a novel biaxial flexure test (BFT)). Image analysis was also performed to quantitatively investigate the fiber distribution characteristics according to the fiber length and placement method and to thoroughly analyze the experimental results. The first cracking strength and corresponding toughness were found to be insignificantly influenced by the fiber length, placement method, and test method, but the panels with longer fibers and with concrete placed at the center (in the maximum moment region) were found to have higher biaxial flexural strength, deflection capacity, and toughness after a deflection of 2.5 mm (d2.5). The panels tested by the BFT method showed lower flexural strength, more cracks with a random distribution, and higher deviation in flexural performances than those tested by ASTM C1550. These test results were verified by evaluating the fiber distribution characteristics (i.e., the number of fibers per unit area, fiber orientation, and fiber dispersion) at localized crack surfaces by using the image analysis technique.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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