MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Key mechanical properties and microstructure of carbon fibre reinforced self-consolidating concrete

2018· article· en· W2781725224 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction and Building Materials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialMicrostructureFlexural strengthUltimate tensile strengthSelf-consolidating concreteCompressive strengthToughnessCuring (chemistry)Fracture toughnessDeflection (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the key mechanical properties and microstructure of different carbon fibre reinforced self-consolidating concrete (CFRSCC) mixtures. Two different water-to-binder (W/B) ratios of 0.35 and 0.40 were used to produce ten CFRSCC mixtures including 0–1% carbon fibres by volume of concrete. The key mechanical properties such as compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength or modulus of rapture, and toughness or fracture energy of CFRSCCs were determined. In addition, the load-deflection behaviour was studied for all CFRSCCs. The microstructure of all CFRSCCs was also observed via scanning electron micrographs (SEMs) of the fracture surface to examine the distribution and failure mode of carbon fibres in self-consolidating concrete. Test results revealed that the increased amount of carbon fibres decreased the compressive strength of CFRSCC by 36.6–58.9% depending on W/B ratio and curing age. However, the higher amount of carbon fibres increased the splitting tensile strength of CFRSCC by 13.1–17% at different W/B ratios and curing ages. Also, the flexural strength and toughness of CFRSCC was increased by 3.6% and 41.4%, respectively, for 0.25% carbon fibres. The load-deflection behaviour diagrams showed that the CFRSCC with 0.25% carbon fibres had the best post-peak response under loading. Furthermore, the SEMs exhibited that the CFRSCCs with 0.35 W/B ratio were denser with lesser pores than the CFRSCCs with 0.50 W/B ratio. Carbon fibres were well-distributed in concrete when the fibre content was 0.25%. It was also observed from SEMs that carbon fibres failed either by pullout or breakage under loading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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