Crack Growth Resistance in Fibre Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Exposed to Sustained Extreme Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portland cement concrete (PCC) is now second only to potable water in per capita consumption. And notwithstanding its numerous benefits, Portland cement itself is responsible for between 4 to 5% of the world’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, geopolymer concrete is a promising alternative, wherein the Portland cement binder is replaced entirely by supplementary cementitious materials triggered by alkaline activators. Relatively little is known on the fracture response of this system, especially when exposed to extreme temperatures. The study reported here focused on the crack growth response of such a system prepared with Class F fly ash and reinforced with steel and polymeric fibres up to 1% volume fraction. The geopolymerization was effected with a blend of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate to achieve a compressive strength of 30 MPa at 28 days. The resulting geopolymer concrete was subjected to temperatures between-30 oC to 300 oC, sustained for 2 hours. A fibre blend of steel to polypropylene in the mass ratio of 4:1 was incorporated. Based on the results, four different stages for fracture behaviour were identified with superior fibre efficiency seen at sub-zero temperatures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".