Effect of Polypropylene Fibers on Self-Healing and Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity Recovery of Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate self-healing properties and recovered dynamic moduli of engineered polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete using non-destructive resonant frequency testing. Two types of polypropylene fibers (0.3% micro and 0.6% macro) and two curing conditions have been investigated: Water curing (at ~25 Celsius) and air curing. The Impact Resonance Method (IRM) has been conducted in both transverse and longitudinal modes on concrete cylinders prior/post crack induction and post healing of cracks. Specimens were pre-cracked at 14 days, obtaining values of crack width in the range of 0.10–0.50 mm. Addition of polypropylene fibers improved the dynamic response of concrete post-cracking by maintaining a fraction of the original resonant frequency and elastic properties. Macro fibers showed better improvement in crack bridging while micro fiber showed a significant recovery of the elastic properties. The results also indicated that air-cured Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete (PFRC) cylinders produced ~300 Hz lower resonant frequencies when compared to water-cured cylinders. The analyses showed that those specimens with micro fibers exhibited a higher recovery of dynamic elastic moduli.
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".